Source
r/BeardTube•
Doubleplus_Ultra

Social Fascism?

Question

A long while ago I posted on Communism 101 but I got no replies. I’ll make it brief-

Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.

this line of thinking is often equated with a downplaying of fascism that directly led to the rise of Hitler.

However, when one looks at recent events, in the US and Europe “Socialist” parties are always openly or clandestinely puppets of bourgeois interests. With Bernies betrayal and the DSA left backing war hawk and segregationist (not to mention creep and rapist) Biden in the US, it really does seem that Stalin and the Communists of the 20s and 30s were correct in their analysis.

So, is social fascism a correct take? Is reality more nuanced? And if so, did Communists err in some other way that accidentally aided Hitler’s grotesque politics?

Bonus question, if you want it- was the later popular front strategy a shameless 180 on Comintern policy? Was it necessary, misguided, or somewhere in between?

Posted Aug 15, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

35
Crossfadefan69•

The problem is DemSoc theory is inherently counterrevolutionary. They want to achieve a socialist system using the existing liberal “democratic” govt, which is just liberal reformism with an end goal. It’s not necessarily that they’re “fascists” in ideology, it’s just that their formula for achieving socialism is naive, unrealistic, and ineffective, especially in America.

DemSoc theory assumes that the bourgeois congress won’t just change the rules any time the DemSocs come close to achieving a victory, which history shows they always have and always will. They also assume that once they make electoral and legislative inroads they won’t be voted out and have their policies reversed by fascists.

Essentially it’s not so much that their ideology is fascist, or they themselves are willful controlled opposition to the state (although quite a few of the more powerful ones surely are), but simply bc their ideology about how to achieve socialism is weak, flawed, and easily defeated by fascists that don’t want to play by the same rules they do. The biggest mistake they make is the assumption that fascists have morals and will play by the rules they’ve set and not change them. Thus, they will be beaten by the fascists every single time. This is why socialists in America need to rally behind a vanguard party and embrace the unfortunate reality that the only revolution that will ever work is a violent one

9
kalaxation•

Excellent response comrade. I'd also like to add that European socialism was birthed out of a concern for citizens at home but exploitation of developing nations abroad. And to this very day European style socialism is imperialist in nature. This further compounds the issues with democratic socialism and shows you how exploitative it can be. Also note, it's constantly undermined by capitalism because they don't have a true dictatorship of the proletariat. THE UK is selling of their national health service, France is imposing austerity while corporate profits soar, and the eu seems feckless in the face of American domination whether in international institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, NATO, UN, or just stalling growing corporate or financial powers. They can't even fight back against other regimes who the have financial stakes in opposing countries. These conflicting capitalist interests are part of the many reasons centrist capitalists fold in the face of fascist opposition.

4
AudioRevolt•

To the fascists, otherwise known as plutocratic capitalists, any nation which restricts or regulates them, is anti-freedom.

The class-based position is that nation-states "are" the rich, and an acceptable national economic position is that freedom for the rich is also freedom for the poor to pursue private enterprise. As if the rights are the same. As if the means are the same.

"Freedom" and "democracy", as terms used by the empire, actually mean "no regulation by the people" and "capitalism" respectively. Any nation which promotes private ownership of production, and also opposes regulation of markets, is (ed: declared) a "free" and "democratic" nation no matter the result for the people. Social democracy wants to keep capitalism, but somehow make it less... less... what it is. So we can have billionaires who dictate policy, as long as they don't overtly discriminate against a race. As if we can have plutocrats, but at the same time, have democracy. It is nonsense.

It isn't "social fascism", it is "capitalism" becoming "fascism" inevitably. The "social" part of social democracy, is essentially begging the powerful to make sure the majority are equally oppressed and exploited, so the rulers stay in their positions of privilege and absent accountability.

3
MuddyFilter•

it is "capitalism" becoming "fascism" inevitably

North Korea China Ussr Cuba Cambodia. Albania

All of these communist regimes were more fascist than any capitalist country has ever been. They even start to develop corporatist economic systems in their later days especially China.

There have been far more communist-fascist nations than nations that went from capitalist to fascist.

Of course you probably actually think that like the US and Britain are "fascist".

Leftist critique and dialectic is so dull and desperate at this point

1
AudioRevolt•

All of these communist regimes were more fascist than any capitalist country has ever been.

Please read more. That is all.

2