No problem!

I’m not a fan of Eco’s 14 points as an identification of fascism. They are common characteristics of fascism, but not the definition of it nor do they explain the rise and fall of fascism. Fascism is better seen as capitalism in decay, as the methods of colonialism applied domestically. The Nazis essentially tried to colonize Europe, treating the rest of Europe the way Europe treats the global south.

Social fascism is essentially a term for those that want to retain imperialist welfare states, bribing the working classes with welfare and siding with imperialism and neocolonialism to fund them, rather than socialism. The German SPD hated the communists, and worked with the Nazis to kill the KPD off, enabling the rise of Nazism in Germany. It’s no coincidence that PJ loves the German SPD.

When people refer to Europe in general, they are doing so as a region built by colonialism that today persists in the form they do by relying on imperialism and neocolonialism. Being upset at Europe’s ongoing and historical role, plundering the global south and refusing to pay reparations, is entirely consistent.

Further, “brainwashing” does not exist. Propaganda does not work that way. People generally license themselves to believe that that which benefits them is justified. Russia isn’t a threat to Europe, what’s threatening is the decay in superprofits from imperialism and neocolonialism causing stagnating economies and a rise in the far-right. Russia is a scapegoat to justify increased military spending.

Not really.

The British exported food during famine to enrich themselves off the backs of Irish, Scottish, Indian, and other colonized peoples. The Soviets exported grain during the 1930s Soviet famine to trade for agricultural machinery to end a naturally occurring famine, and redirected grain to alleviate the famine where they could.

The British slaughtered colonized peoples, both armed and unarmed. The Soviets put down reactionary counterrevolutions that were armed.

The British colonized territories, erasing any autonomy and running their economies on extraction. The Soviets were anti-colonial, and generally helped set up socialist democracy, liberating the working classes.

The British frequently arrested and executed people even for simple backtalk against colonialism and imperialism. The Soviets censored, and did execute people when evidence of an anti-soviet force was brewing to overthrow socialism.

If you erase all of the context, you can find similarities. However, just like you can say Nazis and communists are both “violent,” what matters is who that violence is used against, and for what aims. It’s necessary to investigate beyond surface level comparisons.

PJ is a social fascist, essentially. PJ nearly always posts anti-communist memes that range from horribly misleading to outright disinformation, and will frequently misquote Marx or other leftists to justify opposing communism and supporting imperialism. Further, PJ stalks my account from time to time and tries to grab content for the Nazi bar they moderate, so at a personal level I’d say I’m not a fan.

Let’s try not to accuse people of being a bot. It dehumanizes them, and creates a culture of botjacketing.

You’ve been downplaying neo-Nazis in Ukraine and defending Canadian aggression against Afghanistan. The communists are pointing out your defense of fascism.

Nope. Just like the charges against Maduro, this is bullshit used to manufacture consent.

This is imperialist bullshit, what’s going on is a leftist uprising against the right-wing government and the US Empire supporting it.

☭

Tankies call ourselves as such because we have 3 options, when the pejorative is flung at us:

1. Attack the legitimacy of the pejorative itself. For example, point out that it really only means “someone who supports existing socialist states” at a consistent level.

2. Own the term. By accepting the pejorative, you acknowledge that the line of division between the tankie and the one accusing the other of being a tankie is the fact that the accuser views the tankie as unjustifiably supporting socialist states, while the tankie believed their support to be justified, usually due to a difference in perspective, historiography, and understanding. This forces the conversation forward, to discussions of existing socialism, and what tankies actually support.

3. Accept that the pejorative exists, but vehemently deny that it applies to you.

Only 1 and 2 actually have a leg to stand on, and present a path forward. The reason we tankies accept the pejorative isn’t because the liberal idea of a tankie is a real thing, but because the liberals correctly identify communists as belonging to a coherent group that falls under the same category. This doesn’t mean it isn’t a pejorative and a strawman, it’s like “feminazi” back when that term was popular, only for socialism instead of feminism.

Like “feminazi,” tankie is a term used to dismiss people as holding unreasonable views. It’s by definition a pejorative and strawman, just like “feminazi.”

No problem! Sorry that I don’t have good reading, I fear most liberal narratives would use it to talk about “the rise of the evil Putin” rather than explain the materialist causes behind the nationalists taking power.

You’re mixing belief with Trump’s actual positions, which are nationalist in character. Whether or not Trump believes white supremacism is correct is irrelevant to the fact that his positions are those of a white supremacist. Nationalism is often opposed to the outer, for example Algerians slaughtered any Europeans they saw on sight during the Algerian revolution. It is nevertheless true that this violent national liberation was a progressive movement against colonialism, and was created by colonialism.

As for Fanon, his masterwork (and the one most relevant to our discussion) is The Wretched of the Earth.

Here’s what you said responding to my point on class and the mode of production shaping our thought:

It’s an interesting theory. But without a study in an other mode of production, it’s wishful thinking… and to hope for a new mode of production to change how the brain works, and in such a deep level, is not a very credible one. Moreover, it’s not relevant for communist organization within capitalism.

This is fairly reasonable to see as a denial of class’s impact on how we think, in favor of a more nebulous and less-defined “power.”

Regarding corruption:

Hundred of thousands of trials for corruption 63 years after the foundation of the People Republic (this declaration is from 2012)… it does look like a pretty huge scale to me. There’s corruption in my capitalist country, but far less than in China.

You’re using the total number as your metric for those on trial for corruption in China for China being “corrupt,” more so than “your capitalist country.” Any reasonable reading of this statement implies you believe the number of corruption trials is a good indication for absolute levels of corruption, but this erases the difference in mode of production, the class in power, and therefore which country is more likely to punish corruption.

It is though as, on average, higher classes have higher incomes.

This changes dramatically in socialism, where the working classes are in control. The conflation of class with income implies administrators in socialism are a “higher class” than the rest of the working classes, when in fact they are the same. When we are discussing the so-called corruptive nature of “power,” this becomes a critical hole.

Because it’s irrelevant. The question about the necessity or not of hierarchies is an other debate. Something can be bad and inescapable at the same time.

It’s absolutely relevant given the topic of discussion is whether or not “power corrupts.”

Trump is absolutely relying on nationalism, white supremacy, and more, and is using it to support imperialism. I think your understanding of what constitutes nationalism is different from mine, and again, I recommend Fanon.

Again, you’re confusing Trump’s position as a nationalist with being pro-Russian. Trump is not a Russian ally, he already would have pulled out of Ukraine and NATO, and would not be attacking Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela.

As for the Chilean nationalists, I never said they weren’t working class. I am specifically saying that individual groups can be bad, but if they are fighting against indigenous peoples then this is definitely reactionary. This is why I recommended reading Fanon, I of course oversimplified the situation, and gave the trade union example to illustrate that exceptions exist.

You pointed to China punishing corruption as evidence of “your capitalist country” having “less corruption.” Capitalism itself is a system where socialized production produces private profits, it’s by definition a “corrupt” system.

As for your study, we are talking about class, not income, which is not useful for our purposes at all.

Also not sure why you abandoned the point about large industry and administration being necessary, did you just silently concede that point?

It wasn’t a true revolution, but it was when the nationalists kicked out the liberals who were letting Russia be plundered by the west in “Shock Doctrine.” Putin’s party took power precisely on a nationalist platform, kicking out the compradors, and thus earned legitimate popularity among the Russian people and western demonization.

Trump being a Russian ally is a conspiracy theory, and is used to justify pushing problems from the US onto Russia. Trump’s problems and interests are of American origin.

As for Nationalism in the global south, it’s necessarily an oversimplification. Trade unions can also be violently racist, it’s wrong but not indicative of trade unions being wrong. And for indigenous peoples, they are the ones whose nationalism would be progressive, not the nationalism of those not indigenous.

Very expected of Reddit.