Jump to content
Soviet.ie | Sóivéid.ie
Sign in to follow this  
Fodla32

Is Social Fascism Alive and Well?

Recommended Posts

From Wikipedia:

 

Social fascism was a theory supported by the Communist International (Comintern) during the early 1930s, which held that social democracy was a variant of fascism because, in addition to a shared corporatist economic model, it stood in the way of a complete and final transition to communism. At the time, the leaders of the Comintern, such as Joseph Stalin and Rajani Palme Dutt, argued that capitalist society had entered the "Third Period" in which a working class revolution was imminent, but could be prevented by social democrats and other "fascist" forces. The term "social fascist" was used pejoratively to describe social democratic parties, anti-Comintern and progressive socialist parties, and dissenters within Comintern affiliates throughout the interwar period.

 

 

Is there not some truth to the above in our current world?  Parties like the Labour Party, Provisional Sinn Féin, and the mainstream trade unions make it almost impossible to mobilize genuine resistance to capitalism \ imperialism, because they see the capitalist \ imperialist system as the only system that works. They just want to give it a "human face."

 

More controversially, are certain Anarchist type groups not also working to undermine any real Revolutionary movement?  They do so by rejecting the military disciple that is necessary for Revolution, and by slandering the great achievements of Communism in the past.  They seem to be so chronically individualistic that the capitalist system is actually the only system that could ever tolerate and accommodate them.

 

And what about the SP and SWP?  By reducing everything to material survival, and by spending all their time begging the bourgeois régime for concessions, do they not keep the working class in a state of superstitious reverence to the status quo?  Are they not, in fact, making Revolution impossible?

 

Or, am I going too far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Connolly

was a theory supported by the Communist International (Comintern) during the early 1930s, which held that social democracy was a variant of fascism because, in addition to a shared corporatist economic model, it stood in the way of a complete and final transition to communism.

 

Yet the state-capitalist "Communist International" stood in the way of a "complete and final transition to communism". It being run by a state bourgeois class who's interests were opposed to socialism and the workers they exploited.

 

 

 

Is there not some truth to the above in our current world?  Parties like the Labour Party, Provisional Sinn Féin, and the mainstream trade unions make it almost impossible to mobilize genuine resistance to capitalism \ imperialism,

 

And the single Party states were so accomodating to "genuine resistance to capitalism/imperialism"?

 

Id say it was ten times worse standing up against capitalism in a single party state-capitalist dictatorship.

 

 

 

because they see the capitalist \ imperialist system as the only system that works. They just want to give it a "human face."

 

Sounds like state-capitalism.

 

 

 

More controversially, are certain Anarchist type groups not also working to undermine any real Revolutionary movement?  They do so by rejecting the military disciple that is necessary for Revolution,

 

Necessary according to who?

 

 

 

and by slandering the great achievements of Communism in the past.

 

You mean state-capitalism of the past. I can understand them not wanting to mislead people.

 

 

 

They seem to be so chronically individualistic that the capitalist system is actually the only system that could ever tolerate and accommodate them.

 

Not really. Communism would be a society of immense individual freedom. Even more so than what exists now. Which is relatively little.

 

 

 

And what about the SP and SWP?  By reducing everything to material survival, and by spending all their time begging the bourgeois régime for concessions, do they not keep the working class in a state of superstitious reverence to the status quo?  Are they not, in fact, making Revolution impossible?

 

By demanding the regime for concessions they aim to undermine the status quo. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_demand

 

Ultimately, it will be the historical material conditions, and the subsequent ideology, which will determine the possibility of revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the USSR did what had to be done - until the traitor Gorbechev took over. Of course, mistakes were made, like Khrushchev's slandering of Comrade Stalin, and that had a detrimental effect.   I don't have much time for Deng, but, at least, when he needed to move against the traitors in Tiananmen Square, he did so in a resolute fashion, thus saving the Communist state from counter-revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in the final stage of Communism, there may well be a great deal of freedom, but, until the bourgeois enemy has been totally defeated, there will be a need for strict military discipline.  I always find it funny how these trendy lefties love to wear Che Guevara t-shirts, but the same crowd called Al Gaddafi a dictator, and demanded his overthrow (even if that meant giving power to racist lynch mobs). When did Guevara ever stand for election?  And I think you know what happened to any soldier who disobeyed his orders.  The same goes for Trotsky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Communist international was not state capitalist. I cant see how it was not trying to create a communist world. The USSR and other socialist states  armed, financed, trained and helped in many many ways many revolutionary movements through out the world to free their countries from imperialism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All those parties you mentioned are basically liberal parties, which I would define as parties who want to reform our fascist society but basically keep the structure the same.

 

The most radical of them is probably the socialist party, but the most they would do is nationalise the 20 biggest companies. They have no clue about soviets or direct democracy or anything the mass media might consider impolite or illegal.

 

They have a very naive view of revolution, I don't think there's actually been a successful revolution anywhere where they've had something good to say about it.

 

I think any party that decides to go the electoralism route is a lost cause, because as soon as that happens they start moderating their views to get mass support of people who otherwise wouldn't be interested in them.

 

Sinn fein will eventually get power once they dilute their views enough, but they will be a lot more reformist than they even are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best example of how pathetic these parties are is Syria.

 

Iraq was destroyed based on lies, Libya was destroyed based on lies, and now Syria is being destroyed as well.

 

They still support western intervention for moral reasons, when the real reason is so obviously simple politics. How stupid can these people be?

The old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me? These people have been fooled their entire lives and they still don't realise it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best example of how pathetic these parties are is Syria.

 

Iraq was destroyed based on lies, Libya was destroyed based on lies, and now Syria is being destroyed as well.

 

They still support western intervention for moral reasons, when the real reason is so obviously simple politics. How stupid can these people be?

The old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me? These people have been fooled their entire lives and they still don't realise it.

 

 

Indeed, a chara, this crowd are like petulant children, who don't get 100% their own way.  They cheer led the destruction of the most advanced social system in Africa - simply because one of their cult leaders was not in charge.  But, which cult leader should have been in charge of Libya?  Because each of these cults have their own leader, and only that leader is of any worth.  They support the sectarian gangs in Syria, because Assad is not a member of their cult.  But again, even if Assad was a member of the SWP, the SP would be calling for his overthrow. Such a pathetic crew.  They don't raise above the level of a tribe of monkeys fighting over nuts. Of course, I'm being terribly unfair - to monkeys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Communist international was not state capitalist. I cant see how it was not trying to create a communist world. The USSR and other socialist states  armed, financed, trained and helped in many many ways many revolutionary movements through out the world to free their countries from imperialism

 

 

I don't see much wrong with state capitalism.  You have to realise that China, for example, could be just like Africa today.  Fragmented, powerless, and simply exporting raw materials.  It is only because it has a Communist government that it has built unity and power. The same is true of many states like Libya and Syria.  It was only because of the firm and wise hand of Muammar al-Gaddafi that Libya was able to build up a significant agricultural sector, and food processing sector.  So much so, that Ireland was exporting cattle on the hoof to Libya to be processed there.  Because we have only had weak minded comprador governments, most of our agricultural product is exported raw - without processing.  We are not much different, structurally, to the average African country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see much wrong with state capitalism.  You have to realise that China, for example, could be just like Africa today.  Fragmented, powerless, and simply exporting raw materials.  It is only because it has a Communist government that it has built unity and power. The same is true of many states like Libya and Syria.  It was only because of the firm and wise hand of Muammar al-Gaddafi that Libya was able to build up a significant agricultural sector, and food processing sector.  So much so, that Ireland was exporting cattle on the hoof to Libya to be processed there.  Because we have only had weak minded comprador governments, most of our agricultural product is exported raw - without processing.  We are not much different, structurally, to the average African country.

 

I dont see much wrong with state capitalism either so long that the goverment is using state capitalism as a phase to go through to get to socialism. But is the Chinese goverment really communist ? Im not sure myself I dont know much about the chinese goverment or modern Chinese state.

 

I beleave the people of Libya was a hell of a lot better off when al-Gaddafi was in power. Libya is falling to crap since al-Gaddafi was killed.

 

And I beleave if the Syrian goverment get over overthrowen Syria will be turned into a sectarian hell for the Syrian people. SWP and SP should be ashamed of their selfs for supporting the islamic fundamentalists "rebels". And supporting the scum in Libya in overthrowing al-Gaddafi. How come they were against the invasion of Iraq but support these NATO backed terrorists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Connolly

The Communist international was not state capitalist. I cant see how it was not trying to create a communist world. The USSR and other socialist states  armed, financed, trained and helped in many many ways many revolutionary movements through out the world to free their countries from imperialism

 

A communist world is brought about through a proletarian revolution where the proletariat (a class defined by its relationship to the means of production) seize, control and assert 'ownership' of the means of production.

 

Organising a state, if it is needed at all, is required to defend that control and 'ownership' from an external counter-revolutionary state.

 

The whole point of labelling something as 'state capitalist' is to point to the fact that state-capitalist societies are class societies. Class societies where there exists a controlling class and an uncontrolling class. A powerful class and an unpowerful class. A ruling class and a ruled class. An exploiter class and an exploited class.

 

Or, a proletariat and a state-bourgeoisie/techno-bureaucracy.

 

State capitalist societies like the USSR, China, DPRK, Vietnam, Cuba and so on - do not try to create communism, let alone socialism. They do not do so because, to start with, the apparatus of violence and coercion is controlled by, and serves to maintain, the the class society that exists, and by extension, the interests of the ruling class.

 

Even if the ruling class think they are "creating socialism" (which I doubt they do/did, particularly non-founding leaders of the state), they are not doing so.

 

Do not be suckered in with the rhetoric and red flag waving. These despotic regimes are the enemy of the proletariat.

 

I dont see much wrong with state capitalism either so long that the goverment is using state capitalism as a phase to go through to get to socialism. But is the Chinese goverment really communist ? Im not sure myself I dont know much about the chinese goverment or modern Chinese state.

 

The state-capitalist government (state-capitalists) do not use state-capitalism to get to socialism.

They cant, because they are capitalists, and their class consciousness, wittingly or unwittingly, is one of maintaining and implementing capitalism/state-capitalism.

 

The Chinese government is not communist. It is Communist. And Communists favour state-capitalism - ie. despotic whip cracking capitalist wage slavery minus freedom of expression and association. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could never give my support to any state! The state is used to maintain monopoly, and control, over the means of violence, and as such, is then used towards those struggling against servitude and abject poverty.

 

Poverty and its destructive forces will never be eradicated as long as capitalism exists, therefore, any socialist regime at present, that has poverty existing within its borders, is going to be authoritarian by nature, and end up subverting the needs of the poverty stricken people.

 

Certain state, socialist regimes, may ameliorate some societal conditions for the better, but they will never eradicate them! I don't think socialism or communism can ever be achieved through the apparatus of state control!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you look at the difference between Libya and Syria, you can see the need for a strong state.  Al Gaddafi wanted to promote Direct Democracy, and allowed the tribes to be more or less self governing.  The Libyan state was small, the army and police were small.  Al Gaddafi had originally wanted to get rid of the army altogether and arm the whole population for its own defense.  But, the weakness of such a set up is clear to see.  It's very easy for the imperialist powers to start funding certain groups, and to convince them that they can easily take power - particularly if their area is richer in natural resources than other areas - as is the case with Eastern Libya.

 

Syria, on the other hand, has a very strong central state.  The Army is massive, over half a million soldiers, and religious or tribal loyalty is left at the door when you join the Army. The economy is also centrally planned.  We see that the Syrian state has been able to contain US supported internal rebellion better than Libya did.  Though, Syria hasn't had to deal with nine months of NATO bombing.  But, on the other hand, Syria has far more intense sectarian division than Libya ever had.

 

Libya is now a stateless country, like Somalia.  The imperialists can come and go as they wish - and take what they want.   I can't imagine how any country could ever hope to defend itself without a state and a strong army. To be honest, this reaction against states only helps the enemy.  Marx only saw the state withering away at the final stage of Communism, i.e. when there were no more bourgeois enemies left to fight, i.e. when the state no longer had a function.  Imagine if Venezuela or Cuba were to abolish their states.  How long till US troops would be marching all over them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A communist world is brought about through a proletarian revolution where the proletariat (a class defined by its relationship to the means of production) seize, control and assert 'ownership' of the means of production.

 

Organising a state, if it is needed at all, is required to defend that control and 'ownership' from an external counter-revolutionary state.

 

 

 

And how about internal counter-revoltionaries in alliance with external counter-revolutionaries and imperialist powers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Connolly

And how about internal counter-revoltionaries in alliance with external counter-revolutionaries and imperialist powers?

 

Well there is that aswell yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Connolly

Libya is now a stateless country, like Somalia.  The imperialists can come and go as they wish - and take what they want.   I can't imagine how any country could ever hope to defend itself without a state and a strong army. To be honest, this reaction against states only helps the enemy.  Marx only saw the state withering away at the final stage of Communism, i.e. when there were no more bourgeois enemies left to fight, i.e. when the state no longer had a function.  Imagine if Venezuela or Cuba were to abolish their states.  How long till US troops would be marching all over them?

 

Non-state forces are often better at defending an area than a state. If the UK decided to invade Ireland/free-state the state would be destroyed very quickly. But what would be far harder to destroy are decentralised networks of resistance. No leaders to take out or bribe, and no centres of command to destroy.

 

Centralisation would be a disaster for any resistance. We are not living 200 years ago where the only way to take out the leader/king is to over-run the castle with bow and arrow.

 

This is the 21st century, with cruise missiles and god knows what to target a centralised leadership. And once a centralised leadership is taken out - the complete dissaray and disintegration of the centralised system.

 

The only reason Assad is still there is because for a variety of reasons the US/Nato have not decided to directly take him out. But it would not be difficult for them to do so if they had the political will to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Connolly

So, if you agree that a state is needed, would that not imply a need for highly trained and motivated people to run it?

 

I dont agree that a state is needed. I agree that internal enemies may exist, and that a states role, if it existed, would be to deal with that internal threat.

 

I think any resistance, state or no state, will need highly motivated and trained people to do it. Just look at the non-state Taliban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont agree that a state is needed. I agree that internal enemies may exist, and that a states role, if it existed, would be to deal with that internal threat.

 

I think any resistance, state or no state, will need highly motivated and trained people to do it. Just look at the non-state Taliban.

 

 

The Taliban are fighting a guerrilla war against occupation forces.  That is a very different scenario to having an independent country, and wanting to keep it independent. You need a state for that, while the imperialists still exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-state forces are often better at defending an area than a state. If the UK decided to invade Ireland/free-state the state would be destroyed very quickly. But what would be far harder to destroy are decentralised networks of resistance. No leaders to take out or bribe, and no centres of command to destroy.

 

Centralisation would be a disaster for any resistance. We are not living 200 years ago where the only way to take out the leader/king is to over-run the castle with bow and arrow.

 

This is the 21st century, with cruise missiles and god knows what to target a centralised leadership. And once a centralised leadership is taken out - the complete dissaray and disintegration of the centralised system.

 

The only reason Assad is still there is because for a variety of reasons the US/Nato have not decided to directly take him out. But it would not be difficult for them to do so if they had the political will to do so.

 

 

Im not saying a state is a fail safe way to stop invasion, but it is the best way.  A group like the IRA may well be a thorn in the invaders side, but they will rarely force a withdrawal - without state sponsorship.  The only time the IRA was a real threat to British occupation was when it had state sponsorship from Libya.  Even the US war of independence, so called, had massive state sponsorship from France. The same in Vietnam.  There were the state forces of North Vietnam and China, along with limited input from the USSR.

 

As for Al Assad, the imperialists certainly do have the political will to take him out, but he has massive state support, not only form his own forces, which are very formidable, but also from Russia, China and Iran. Hezbollah is also a highly effective fighting army - but only because it has massive state support. The USA is backing off because it fears a direct fight with all these states combined.

 

It is no accident that the imperialists are trying to destroy the state in the Middle East and Third World countries.  The only time that non-state forces will be successful is when the imperialists have been severely weakened, as happened after the two world wars.  Now, anti-imperialists face a single all-empire army, made up of the US Army and its many clients - including all of Europe. A few guys with AKs in the jungle will not be enough to counter this imperial force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Connolly

The Taliban are fighting a guerrilla war against occupation forces.  That is a very different scenario to having an independent country, and wanting to keep it independent. You need a state for that, while the imperialists still exist. 

 

And keeping a country independent is a very different scenario than a proletarian revolution, A revolution brought about through a class consciousness on a mass scale. Not like the castrated consciousness of people in the present epoch. Yeah, when people have a castrated consciousness a state is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Connolly

Im not saying a state is a fail safe way to stop invasion, but it is the best way.  A group like the IRA may well be a thorn in the invaders side, but they will rarely force a withdrawal - without state sponsorship.  The only time the IRA was a real threat to British occupation was when it had state sponsorship from Libya.  Even the US war of independence, so called, had massive state sponsorship from France. The same in Vietnam.  There were the state forces of North Vietnam and China, along with limited input from the USSR.

 

As for Al Assad, the imperialists certainly do have the political will to take him out, but he has massive state support, not only form his own forces, which are very formidable, but also from Russia, China and Iran. Hezbollah is also a highly effective fighting army - but only because it has massive state support. The USA is backing off because it fears a direct fight with all these states combined.

 

It is no accident that the imperialists are trying to destroy the state in the Middle East and Third World countries.  The only time that non-state forces will be successful is when the imperialists have been severely weakened, as happened after the two world wars.  Now, anti-imperialists face a single all-empire army, made up of the US Army and its many clients - including all of Europe. A few guys with AKs in the jungle will not be enough to counter this imperial force.

 

How is it the best way?

 

Small states like the Irish free-state, when faced with the overwhelming might of states like Russia, China, USA, UK, France and so on, would be smashed in a few days. Cruise missile to a few points and the whole system of command and control would be fucked.

 

Decentralised resistance and autonomous units of power are the only way to resist external threats from an overwhelming power.

 

As for the IRA. The IRA are of their time. An extreme minority. Proletarian revolution is mass participation. There is no comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Connolly

The difference in todays world is that time and space have been diminished like no point in human history. The abgility to strike centres of power, command and control are without any historical comparison. Historically centralised resistance provided a buffer of time and space between the enemy and the people and places of command. Not any longer. Gaddafi found that out while travelling in his convoy. The unseen and untouchable is up there in the sky watching everything from Nevada. Some have missiles that could have taken him out there and then from 200 miles away but it wouldnt have had the propaganda effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×