db0Literally France right now
алсааас [she/her]For those who don’t seem to get it:
No, this meme does not mean that you can’t temporarily halt fascist electoral victory, but rather that fighting symptoms and portrayng that as a"victory over fascism" completely disregard the root cause (as liberalism often does)…
Tho I’m ngl, the NFP seems to be pretty based, at least relative to the usual neolib bs
ie.: Fascism is a built-in function of capitalism and thus bourgeois “democracy”. Capitalism turn to fascism when threatened, so as long as you aren’t ready to give up the private ownership of production, you will not be able to get rid of fascism (paraphrasing Bertolt Brecht here)
sheesh, if often forget, that libs and revisionists actually believe in bourgeois democracy. If you are open to changing your mind I can recommend “Reform or Revolution” by Rosa Luxenburg
- link to wikipedia
- link to book at marxists.org (should also be available as an ebook on there, as well as in different languages
TiltinyallSuch a half truth, fascism is a part of ALL governance. Please name a socialist or communist country that hasn’t had a fascist leader at the top.
1st of all there is no such thing as a communist country, as communism describes a state-, money- and classless society.
Then I think you are conflating two very different things: what I think you are alluring to, simply describes a more centralised and ruthless approach at achieving and keeping alive a revolution.
Fascism is a very different thing. Basically it’s the act of “unifying” a group of people or nation against a caricature of a “common enemy”. It seeks the suppression of proletarian class struggle by forcing collaboration and integrating society into one “corpus”. Corporatism is a core tenant of fascism, which is (imo) very well depicted through unions being forced to merge with (or be disbanded into) private companies, because “such distinctions are obsolete when we stand united as one Volk”. Those class distinctions never disappear, but the whole charade is basically based on that premise.
Ofc this all serves the protection of capital by fooling the working masses and suppressing labour or simply “undesirable” elements of society…
Oh yeah big comrade? What does capitalism describe then? The fAsCisT gubment that supports your little suburban lifestyle with your college philosophy friends that are gonna change the world with your liberal arts degree? Thanks comrade pot for calling out my black ole kettle.
ComradeSharkfuckerProof is in the puddin hun
fascism is secretly coded into capitalism
It isn’t exactly a secret, comrade. It’s just that the term “fascist” is still out of style, so they call themselves “conservatives” instead.
Yes I would like an order of snark, hold the name calling please. Yall still sound the exact same no matter the ridiculous way your thread of association gets
Communism involves, almost by definition, a centrally planned economy. That isn’t really possible without a state.
A Leninist would tell you that the “state” is defined by class suppression, so in a truly classless society the “state” ceases to exist and becomes simply the bureaucracy by which the production of society is organized an allocated.
An Anarchist would tell you that communism doesn’t require a centrally planned economy at all, and that small groups that own and control their own means of production are capable of spontaneously organizing at a mass scale and distributing their production without a central authority.
A Leninist would tell you that the “state” is defined by class suppression
A Leninist should perhaps open a dictionary instead of trying to redefine words.
small groups that own and control their own means of production are capable of spontaneously organizing at a mass scale
An Anarchist has clearly never worked in any group setting I’m familiar with.
Socialism can involve that (decentralised planning is possible)
I had to read that a couple of times before I understood what you are trying to say. At first glance, it seemed like you were calling democracy itself bourgeois, but I think you meant it as a specific thing that isn’t actual democracy… e.g. it’s an illusion of democracy because capitalism gives the wealthy the ability to steer the whole ship, as it were. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
uisIt seems so. Capitalism fundamentally unequal, which is opposite of real democracy.
I’m glad you took the time to read and understand it in good faith!
And yes, under bourgeois “democracy” (be it Multiparty or or bi/mono party dominant) you only get to choose between various representatives of capital
The system and it’s law are inherently designed in such a way, that no matter whom you elect, you still live under the dictatorship of capital
Exactly that. Capitalism is incompatible with democracy.
Found it If you click on author name it only gives you the web version, for epub you need to go to this page:
thx for providing the link!
(I don’t frequent marxists.org, since I get all my ebooks through Anna’s archive)
I’ve learned that using the term “bourgeois” just confuses half of liberals and convinces the other half that you must be a tankie - I just call it liberal democracy and they get it (it does send them into reactionary fits, though).
That just exposes them as being politically illiterate reactionaries and staunch defenders of capital