Log in

View Full Version : social fascism



trivas7
11th January 2009, 19:01
At the Sixth Congress of the Commitern 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 Commitern'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.

Long live the social fascists!

Qwerty Dvorak
11th January 2009, 19:05
At the Sixth Congress of the Commitern 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 Commitern'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.

Long live the social fascists!
Well, Joe must be blushing in his grave now. Fascism is long dead, social democracy lives on.

Oops! :blushing:

Plagueround
12th January 2009, 00:40
Quick everyone! Watch as Trivas gallantly and bravely wrestles the past to the ground and fights with it! Who will be the ultimate victor? What will the end result be? Will anyone care? Will he ever mention anything relevant to the world today? Will he manage to create a post that doesn't look like he copied and pasted something from a wikipedia article?

THE SUSPENSE!

Die Neue Zeit
12th January 2009, 01:44
Although Trivas raises a very good point, I don't think it's best to address the concept of social fascism in this thread.

TheCultofAbeLincoln
12th January 2009, 02:26
Everything Stalin disagreed with was labeled 'fascist'.

Social Democracy? FASCIST!
Trotsky? FASCIST!
The POUM? FASCIST!
Everyone who doesn't agree with the Dear Leader? FASCIST!

Since the Comintern was made up of Stalin's groupies we can assume it was just another load of bullshit used to discredit his enemies.

*edit not to say that the social democrats are all that great. Those in Germany following WWI seemed to have been, generally, a bunch of pussys, if not fasciti.

Die Neue Zeit
12th January 2009, 02:31
^^^ My application of that term pertains to Blairites, Eustonites ("Euston Manifesto" crap), etc. - but I'm not at liberty to discuss this further. :(

TheCultofAbeLincoln
12th January 2009, 02:35
When I think of contemporary social-democrats I generally consider Dennis Kucinich and the left-wing democrats. Though it certainly different things to different people.

Die Neue Zeit
12th January 2009, 02:40
Kucinich isn't the "far left" type who's inclined to do this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-set-step-t98745/index.html

Qwerty Dvorak
12th January 2009, 02:42
*edit not to say that the social democrats are all that great. Those in Germany following WWI seemed to have been, generally, a bunch of pussys, if not fasciti.
Well what would consider yourself then?

TheCultofAbeLincoln
12th January 2009, 03:05
Kucinich isn't the "far left" type who's inclined to do this:


Yeah, that's freaky. I like the fact that unlike all the other chickenshits he voted against the Patriot Act.


Well what would consider yourself then?

Social Democrat, but I don't "support" the people of "my" ideology back in the day as opposed to those who I think were right for their situation.

KC
12th January 2009, 05:09
Quick everyone! Watch as Trivas gallantly and bravely wrestles the past to the ground and fights with it! Who will be the ultimate victor? What will the end result be? Will anyone care? Will he ever mention anything relevant to the world today? Will he manage to create a post that doesn't look like he copied and pasted something from a wikipedia article?

THE SUSPENSE!

Best post I've read in a while. Keep it up.

Die Neue Zeit
12th January 2009, 05:10
Cult: And to think that, while Kucinich voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, the unconstitutional parts of it still look so "libertarian" when compared to the soc-fash Blairite stuff.

TheCultofAbeLincoln
12th January 2009, 09:06
That's what I think I've picked up. Can't the government in the UK now hold someone for months without charging them? From what I've heard Europe generally has a lot tighter control in many ways.

That said, we Americans seem to try and restrict every social freedom there is.

Demogorgon
12th January 2009, 16:26
^^^ My application of that term pertains to Blairites, Eustonites ("Euston Manifesto" crap), etc. - but I'm not at liberty to discuss this further. :(
Calling Blairites Social Fascists isn't really accurate. They are really just moderate Conservatives with Strong Elements of Neo-Liberalism and some Neo-Conservatism.

I have always found the Social Fascist concept pretty silly. But it just can't fit with Blair and his cronies, because they aren't even Social Democrats to begin with.

The Eustonites, as you call them, are a more interesting example, but I'd just call them the left wing of the Neo-Conservative movement. A bit like the Socialists in America who ended up in bed with Reagan.

IcarusAngel
13th January 2009, 22:40
Fascism is not dead by any means. The last fascist society in Latin America is only about 40 years old, perhaps younger. Many countries in Latin America could slip back into a kind of Pinochet/Viedela fascist nightmare. I don't think it'll ever be as bad as what happened in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, with operation condor and the brutal forms of torture that was perpetrated against communists and other "dissidents," the exploitation of resources by foreign corporations that led to millions of starvation deaths, but some remants of these societies are still left and it could still come back.

Fascism may be an over used term and an oversimplification, but the threat of it still exists in countries that are at present capitalist democracies.

trivas7
14th January 2009, 18:30
Fascism may be an over used term and an oversimplification, but the threat of it still exists in countries that are at present capitalist democracies.
Where does the threat of fascism IYO come from, exactly? Political parties like Putin's in Russia, racial/anti-Semetic attitudes, tin-pot dictators (Mugabe in Africa)?

Woland
14th January 2009, 18:52
Where does the threat of fascism IYO come from, exactly? Political parties like Putin's in Russia, racial/anti-Semetic attitudes, tin-pot dictators (Mugabe in Africa)?

Threat of fascism comes from certain tensions in the times of a revolution. Now if you insist on bringing up Russia, I would say the threat of fascism there is very low. United Russia is the president's umbrella party, meaning its made for nothing else than upholding the -current- social order and the president. Now, even though with the rise of the opposition during the last 15 years many pseudo-fascist groups like the NBP became quite popular, Russia's history and a popular Communist party make it almost useless, meaning that when the revolution will occur, such groups will be easily defeated as they have no support with the ordinary people, something that fascism needs.