the left wing of fascism and socialdemocracy

[black magick hustla]

Well, I was listening to this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T1meFzfBZY and it made me curious about Ramiro Ledesma. He founded the JONS (Junta de ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista - Junta of offensive National Syndicalism). He reminded me of the strasserite left wing of the NSDAP, except without the racialist ideology. His ideas are obviously fascist -He spoke of an alleged opposition to capitalism and apparently he also spoke of class struggle and a "proletarian nation". He later would distance himself of fascism, denoucning the falangists in a text called "fascismo en españa?" and he allegedly said that the red shirts of Garibaldi fit him better than the black shirts of Mussolini. He later was shot by militants of the CPE.

His ideas were very similar to the strasserites. The Strasser brothers took really seriously the "socialist" element of the NSDAP and even spoke of closer relations with the Soviet Union. Hitler thought their ideas would alienate the middle class and the bourgeosie and the left wing was finally liquidated in the Night of the Long Knifes.


A lot of his ideas seem to me very similar to social democracy - even the latin american social democracy that is so popular in here. Both speak of the good of a greater nation and make strong references to the working class and to "marxist" ideas. Both also use strong nationalist rhetoric and hold heavy corporatist ideas. Both also are willing to rally workers to war for the nation. Also, let us remember that the freikorps were really close to social democracy.

What do trotskyists think about this? Do you think the left wing of fascism represented a "workers' millieu" were entryism was viable?

[Zurdito]

no. also as a side point I don´t think that what you call social democracy in Latin America is really social democracy.

Trotsky´s analysis of fascism explains the strasserite phenomenon pretty well i.e. that anti-capitalist rhetoric needs to be used at a time when capitalism has clearly failed, in order to be able to rally the masses to a "national" socialism, ultimately based on the concilliation of classes, and use this mass movement to crush revolutionaries. and then that the anti-capitalist wing of fascism will be wiped out once power is consolidated byt he fascist regime and they are free enough of the threat of revolution to be able to revert back to governing as a more traditional bourgeois state.

so by what logic could you pratice entryism in groups whose aim was the organsied crushing of the independent labour movement and the left, in the name of national unity.

btw you are right that some would-be trotskyist groups like the morenoites practiced entryism in the Peronist Party (JP), and today others advocate this in the PSUV. Again I think this is unacceptabl and alien to trotskyism. entryism as a tactic was practiced by the original leninsits and trotsyists into organsiation established by the working class itself to put forward their interests, and which represented the working class breaking with the exisitng order in the name of better representing itself. the leadership of these movements is a differnet issue.

this si not the same as organisations demogogically created from above by sections of the bourgeoisie, int he name of roganising, mobilising and controlling workers for their own itnerests. as was the case in the JP or is the case in the PSUV. this is the case regarding the strasserites, who went out in the name of Nazism to recruit workers. regarding the JONS I don´t know the facts but given the context I can guess it was not an organisation based on the working class either, regardless of who joined it. Am I wrong?

[Die Neue Zeit]

What's with the bashing of the PSUV? Unlike the Peronists, who were center-populists, the PSUV is left-populist (with the bonus of participatory democracy).

[Zurdito]

participatory democracy?

the PSUV exists as a tool of support for Chavez, it was created for the government to control, organise and mobilise the workers for its own interests. it is a tool against the left, using the resources of the state (bribery and coercion)to get workers to give up attempts at independent representation. it can never be anything more than this, ít´s not going to be won to an independent cass position, it´s purpose is to be the chavista party. you don´t ask a party to be something that it isn´t and has no intentions of being.

and it´s not even true to say that it has appealed to subjective revolutionaries in an appeal to them left to coerce them. no. the party has been open about what it is: it´s the party to support Chavez and his bourgeois economic nationalism, nothing more. those joining are not subjective revolutionaries, but chavistas (and in many cases it seems, just people joining in hope of some rewards, as is evidenced byt he fact that it claimed over 5 million members last year, quite a lot more than even boted for Chavez´s referendum proposal at the time, despite the fact that one of the central stated aims of its formation was to campaign for a yes vote!)

[Die Neue Zeit]

but chavistas (and in many cases it seems, just people joining in hope of some rewards, as is evidenced by the fact that it claimed over 5 million members last year, quite a lot more than even those [who voted] for Chavez´s referendum proposal at the time [...])

So perhaps the mass influx is a bit suspect. Are you criticizing here the rapidness of that influx, or the notion of the influx itself? Any socialist revolution from here on in has to be made by a really, really mass international workers' party (Chapter 6 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html)).

[Zurdito]

So perhaps the mass influx is a bit suspect. Are you criticizing here the rapidness of that influx, or the notion of the influx itself?

neither really, it´s not my place to suggest tactics to Chavez about how he should run his own political machinery.

I am just saying that if it was set up with one of its central aims being to campaign to win the referendum for Chavez, and a large number of people in the party did´t even vote in the referendum of voted agaisnt Chavez, that actually a lot of members might just have joined for personal interest, and nothing to do with politics.

[DancingLarry]

participatory democracy?

the PSUV ... was created for the government to control, organise and mobilise the workers for its own interests. it is a tool against the left, using the resources of the state (bribery and coercion)to get workers to give up attempts at independent representation. it can never be anything more than this, ít´s not going to be won to an independent cass position, it´s purpose is to be the chavista party.

Sounds like an excellent description of the Mexican PRI. Would you categorize the PSUV with the PRI?

[Herman]

to get workers to give up attempts at independent representation.

Yes, because there aren't enough left-wing parties in Venezuela. :rolleyes:

[Louis Pio]

Damn Zurdito you really come off as a diehard secterian sometimes. And your views seem not to be based on alot of facts. If you look at the PSUV or the PSUV youth you would see that their is a fight in those parties between reformism and working class socialists. And instead of participating in that fight, it seems you view is we should criticise the workers in those parties from our moral high ground party of the few and pure... No?

[Random Precision]

Damn Zurdito you really come off as a diehard secterian sometimes. And your views seem not to be based on alot of facts. If you look at the PSUV or the PSUV youth you would see that their is a fight in those parties between reformism and working class socialists. And instead of participating in that fight, it seems you view is we should criticise the workers in those parties from our moral high ground party of the few and pure... No?

The Leninist strategy is to organize the workers outside of reformist parties, in the recognition that 1) parties with a reformist leadership can never express the highest aims of the working class (and will inevitably betray the workers they claim to represent when capitalism enters into a phase of crisis), and 2) that waging a battle against a reformist leadership is fought on the leadership's terms, and as such is completely futile.

Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht tried to fight such a battle in the German SPD, and did not see how workers could be organized outside of what they saw as the working class' only party. When they finally did decisively break with the SPD, not enough workers went with them and Ebert was able to send the Freikorps against them, while the main section of the workers stood by, having been poisoned by reformist illusions.

The moral of the story is this: the workers need to have a strong, revolutionary organization that is ready to fight when a crisis occurs.

As for Marmot's post, I get what he's trying to say, but nevertheless it's ridiculous to compare entering social-democratic parties to entering fascist ones.

[Zurdito]

Damn Zurdito you really come off as a diehard secterian sometimes. And your views seem not to be based on alot of facts. If you look at the PSUV or the PSUV youth you would see that their is a fight in those parties between reformism and working class socialists. And instead of participating in that fight, it seems you view is we should criticise the workers in those parties from our moral high ground party of the few and pure... No?

well RP answered this pretty well.

There is a fight against the right and the left in the PSUV, yes. This happens in many parties.

You say that there is a fight between socialists, but I haven´t seen evidence of this apart from the small numebrs who are marxists consciously practising entryism.

Who is the left of the PSUV? People like Stalin Perez Borges who have gone on record stating that the "Bolviarian Revolution" must go through Chavez. In other words, the left isnide the PSUV does not want to go beyond the current bounds of the PSUV and Chavismo, i.e. class concilaition and economic nationalism. They are not joining with the aim of a working class revolution, but with the aim fo supporting Chavez. some may wish he was more left wing, yes. in which case we should break the illusion, not reinforce it!

I don´t think it´s "sectarian" to recognise a fact. what is sectarian IMO is to turn our back on the vanguard of workers who have seen through Chavez, and to instead try to find a route to easy recruitment by demagogically appealling to mass opinion, which follows the leadership of a bourgeois caudillo and not that of workers in struggle in places like Sanitarios Maracay, SIDOR, or the oil sector. The task of revolutionaries is to organsie the vanguard to fight for the leadership of the class, not to propose policies which are behind the level the vanguard has reached - rejection of Chavez and understanding of the need for independent political organisation outside of the PSUV - and instead trying to "go straight to the masses" as a small group of intellectuals. That is not the Bolshevik method.

[Zurdito]

Yes, because there aren't enough left-wing parties in Venezuela. :rolleyes:

and do they all recieve heavy state funding, or just the PSUV?

and how many democratically controlled, non-bureaucratic and non class-coniliation unions are there?

[black magick hustla]

As for Marmot's post, I get what he's trying to say, but nevertheless it's ridiculous to compare entering social-democratic parties to entering fascist ones.

Why?

I think they are quite similar. I dont mean because both are capitalist, but in terms of ideas and rhetoric. I think peronism was virtually undistinguishable with social democracy. The PRI lead a corporatist state and murdered communists and still was enthusiastically supported by sectors of the communist movement.

[Random Precision]

Why?

I think they are quite similar. I dont mean because both are capitalist, but in terms of ideas and rhetoric. I think peronism was virtually undistinguishable with social democracy. The PRI lead a corporatist state and murdered communists and still was enthusiastically supported by sectors of the communist movement.

Well. I do not think much of entryism as a tactic in the first place, to say nothing of the reformist IMT, which has reduced all of Marxism to that tactic. But I think there is a key difference between fascism and social-democracy in that the purpose of fascism is to violently crush the workers' movement. Now you might say that social-democrats have done the same thing (most notably in Germany) and you would be right- however, the social-democratic leadership's goal in general is to co-opt the workers' movement. As such, in some cases it may be possible to reach workers inside those parties who are disillusioned with the leadership by temporarily entering the organization. This is what Trotsky was trying to do with the French Turn, although he made a huge mistake in forcing all sections of the Fourth International to copy that move- the American SWP, for example, would have been much better off working in the CIO unions than the Socialist Party.

As for Peron, the only similarity between him and social-democracy was that he occasionally indulged in some left-posturing. But as you said he lead a state that could be compared to fascism in many respects.

[ComradeOm]

I think they are quite similar. I dont mean because both are capitalist, but in terms of ideas and rhetoricHuh?

Just because capitalist parties occasionally indulge in murdering communists (and even here there is a huge difference) does not mean that they are similar. To be honest I'm not sure how anyone can possibly claim that the "ideas and rhetoric" of social-democracy can be equated to that of fascism. Being perfectly blunt, and I think anyone with even cursory knowledge of political though will agree with me here, they are just not alike

[black magick hustla]

Well ComradeOm, there are different "fascisms". Also please dont patronize me, if you think they are so dissimilar put arguments, dont say dumb things like "anyone with a cursory knowledge" of political theory. I am quite familair with the history of fascism.

There was a truth with the stalinist analysis of social democracy being "social fascism". Both coopt "working class" language, both are meant to recuperate the concept of class struggle. Not all fascist regmes were particularly as brutal as Hitlers or Mussolini's - Peronism comes to my mind. Both gravitate towards a heavily state controlled economy - welfare, social security, etc.

[ComradeOm]

I am quite familair with the history of fascismWell then surely you can see the glaring differences between that and social democracy?

No offence was intended by my above post, I tried to phrase it as delicately as possible, but the differences between the two are so self-evident as to be unmistakable. You might as well ask what is the difference between apples and oranges

Actually that works quite well as an analogy - both are fruit but are otherwise completely different in taste and colour. Hard to confuse


There was a truth with the stalinist analysis of social democracy being "social fascism". Both coopt "working class" language, both are meant to recuperate the concept of class struggleAgain... huh?

Both fascism and social-democracy (to discuss their broad archtypes) either explicitly renounce, or at least downplay, class struggle. The former in particular firmly relegates this to the concept of all society working for the 'national good'. Working class support for fascism (historically an overwhelmingly middle class ideology) is usually the result of a) offering a convenient scapegoat and collective identity, and b) the idea that 'big business' must be tamed and forced to contribute to the nation. Need I really spell out the differences with social-democratic labour parties or delve into the different historical evolution of the two?

It seems to me that you are basing this judgement almost entirely on Peronism. Admittedly I'm not particularly familiar with this movement but from what I've read its roots lie far more with traditional Latin American anti-politics, with a strong dose of populism and corporatism, than fascism

[Devrim]

Well then surely you can see the glaring differences between that and social democracy?

Well if fascism is given a modern day use, no.

Fascism had a meaning in the 1930s today it tends to be used for any right wing tendency that people don't like.

It can be difficult to see the difference. For example in our country, Turkey, the ultra-nationalist CHP is defined by many leftists as fascist. They are also a member of the Socialist International.

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

Fascism had a meaning in the 1930s today it tends to be used for any right wing tendency that people don't likeYes, I've often noticed the tendency on the left to label anyone and everyone who disagrees with their position a 'fascist'. Its a ridiculously inaccurate use of the term which actually refers to a specific political ideology/trait. Really, do people seriously think that there is no meaningful difference between George Bush and Adolf Hitler?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well. I do not think much of entryism as a tactic in the first place, to say nothing of the reformist IMT, which has reduced all of Marxism to that tactic.

I wasn't expecting this aggressive remark from a Cliffite. :confused:


Both fascism and social-democracy (to discuss their broad archtypes) either explicitly renounce, or at least downplay, class struggle.

Indeed:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/redefining-fascism-national-t86851/index.html

Fascism, historically, has come in so many colours. I recall talking to a fash online myself, who lamented that the old colonial fascism (that of Hitler and Mussolini) spurred colonial immigration into Europe. Because of this, modern "fascism" is quite defensive (just look at the "surprising" cooperation between far-right groups of different ethnically-White backgrounds), and has more in common with Franco than with either Hitler or Mussolini (notwithstanding the former's overt racism).

I think it is proper to call the modern phenomenon "national fascism." It emphasizes nation over even empire (per the above on the original colonial fascism), and it helps counter mainstream-right talk about "National Socialism vs. international socialism." As a side benefit, it also allows for discussion on fascism of the "social" type.

[Zurdito]

Marmot:



I think they are quite similar. I dont mean because both are capitalist, but in terms of ideas and rhetoric. I think peronism was virtually undistinguishable with social democracy


but as part of the foundation of Peronism as a party (Partido Justicialista), the Partido Laborista liquidated itself into this alliance with national capitalists.

Social democratic parties on the other hand retained a class-based composition, but led by bureaucrats with a bourgeois ideology.

the difference though is that social democratic parties were understood as a means for the working class to represent itself within capitalism, whereas in parties like the JP the working class was represented as having a common interest with the bosses in developing a new capitalist society in opposition to the oligarchy and imperialism.

in the later model, "class" is denied, and popular struggle is instead replaced with the "pueblo" against the rest: the pueblo being understood as including patriotic capitalists. this is the same in Venezuela today. Social democracy does not have this dimension.

this all reminds me of Trotsky´s analysis that in the third world the working class tends to be either completely marginalised by a right-wing repressive regime, or heavily subordinated by the merging of its organs of representation with the state and the bourgeoisie.