Not strange at all. Mostly the people shitting on the libs around here are ātankiesā or whatever flavor gets the fascists more points. Itās simple math.
there is not and never has been any historical evidence of a red-brown alliance. Communists, even at the height and horror of Stalinist purges, were never fascist. Fascism is something different, and the urge to conflate the two just makes you seem dangerously uneducated on the subject. No, worse than that, because misunderstanding and miscommunicating the nature of fascism is actually a boon to the fascists! It is in essence no different than when Stalin intentionally mischaracterized social democracy as being āthe moderate wing of fascismā and worse than actual Nazism in order to give himself political cover in the lead up to Molotov-Ribbentrop.
So when you deceive yourself and others about the nature of fascism, you are aiding the fascists. So like donāt do that.
But this still has nothing to do with the article or post, talk about living rent-free
Apologies for the long post that largely agrees with what you had to say :p
To give some background to the uniniated, the theory of āSocial Facismā as described gives a historical perspective into so-called āred-brown unityā leading up until WW2.
(anti communist parties described Stalinists as fascist)
[ā¦] led to mutual hostility between social democrats and communists, which were additionally intensified in 1929 when Berlinās police, then under control of the SPD (socdem) government, shot down communist workers demonstrating onĀ May DayĀ in what became calledĀ BlutmaiĀ (Bloody May). That and the repressive legislation against the communists that followed served as further evidence to communists that social democrats were indeed āsocial fascistsā.
The idea of social fascism, that social democrats are āobjectively the moderate wing of fascismā as Stalin put it, intensified by SocDem authoritarian anti-left policies, lead to even greater hostility from the Communists against the Liberals than the Naziās themselves at the time.
In 1929, the KPDās paramilitary organisation, theĀ Roter FrontkƤmpferbundĀ (āAlliance of Red Front-Fightersā), was banned as extremist by the governing social democrats.Ā A KPD resolution described the āsocial fascistsā [social democrats] as the āmain pillar of the dictatorship of Capitalā.Ā In 1930,Ā Kurt SchumacherĀ of the SPD accused Communists of being āred-lacqueredĀ doppelgangersĀ of the Nazisā.Ā InĀ Prussia, the largest state of Germany, the KPD united with the Nazis in unsuccessful attempt to bring down the state government of SPD by means of aĀ Landtag referendum.
So technically, there was a red-brown (Communist-Nazi) alliance within Prussia in order to take down the SocDems, the Comms were obviously more ideologically aligned with socdems but felt they were the main thing preventing progress and thus wanted to speed up their demise.
We all know how collaborating with the Naziās turned out:
AfterĀ Adolf HitlerāsĀ Nazi PartyĀ came to power in Germany, the KPD was outlawed and thousands of its members were arrested, including ThƤlmann. Those events made the Comintern do a complete turn on the question of alliance with social democrats and the theory of social fascism was abandoned.
At theĀ Seventh Congress of the CominternĀ in 1935,Ā Georgi DimitrovĀ outlined the new policy of theĀ popular frontĀ in his address āFor the Unity of the Working Class Against Fascismā.Ā This popular front [ā¦]
The American historianĀ Theodore DraperĀ argued that āthe so-called theory of social fascism and the practice based on it constituted one of the chief factors contributing to the victory of German fascism in January 1933ā.
It turns out that by the communists temporarily aligning against liberals with the fascists in what today would probably be known as āaccelerationismā, we headed from social democracy to concentration camps in 10 years.
And as you say, fascism is typically more obvious:
Leon TrotskyĀ argued against the accusations of āsocial fascismā. In the March 1932Ā Bulletin of the Opposition, he declared: āShould fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. [ā¦] And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victoryā.
And while there are elements of logic to such a conclusion of āsocial fascismā especially when today you have every āsocial democratā or āliberalā capitaluting heavily rightwards and forming alliances with the far-right (France etc.)
BUT
As you say, and as history has shown, muddying the waters about the true nature of fascism pulls wool over the eyes of those with potential to affect change and prevent the rise true fascism. Which is growing every day.
Karl Popper argued that some radical parties of the era welcomed or turned a blind eye to the weakening of democracy, or saw a dictatorship as a temporary stepping stone to a revolution.
quote from Popper ā[Communists] even hoped that a totalitarian dictatorship in Central Europe would speed up matters [ā¦] Accordingly, the Communists did not fight when the fascists seized power. (Nobody expected the Social Democrats to fight). For the Communists were sure that the proletarian revolution was overdue and that the fascist interlude, necessary for its speeding up, could not last longer than a few months.ā
And finally, it reeks of the unfortunate leftist āpurity testā behaviour which weakens unity and divides potential allies.
In 1969, the ex-communist historian Theodore Draper argued that the Communists who proposed the theory of social fascism, āwere chiefly concerned with drawing a line of blood between themselves and all others to the ārightā of them, including the most āleft-wingā of the Social-Democrats.ā
Anyway, when I read this theory it opened my eyes a tonne to the folly of refusing to collaborate with liberals. While I still believe liberal and center right policy, along with intense anti-left propaganda, are the reason for the rise of fascism today (overton window, ratcheting effect, disillusionment with electoral politics due to ineffective and oppressive governance that only benefits the wealthy).
Despite this by ostracising and refusing to collaborate with liberals we shoot ourselves in the foot by being so obsessed with purity that we reject reality. Perfect is the enemy of good. All progress is good provided it takes us along the right path and does not cut off the path to something greater.
I didnāt really have the time or energy to go into the supporting logic, for as youāve just demonstrated its a very involved argument that involves a lot of oft ignored history of the period after the crushing defeat of the German working class uprising (1923, '24) but before the Nazis took power in the wake of the Reichstag fire ('33, '34). Which honestly Iām not great on anyway, I appreciate your insight, slight factual correction that just makes the point even more urgently, and any book recommendations!
So while we are providing clarification and context to the uninitiated, I dug out Trotskyās definition of fascism from 1932 since we are being so adamant about properly defining it:
At the moment that the ānormalā police and military resources of the bourgeois dictatorship, together with their parliamentary screens, no longer suffice to hold society in a state of equilibrium ā the turn of the fascist regime arrives. Through the fascist agency, capitalism sets in motion the masses of the crazed petty bourgeoisie [the small business owners basically MAGAs], and bands of the declassed and demoralized lumpenproletariat [working poor who are so exploited and disillusioned they defy their own class interests]; all the countless human beings whom finance capital itself has brought to desperation and frenzy. [ā¦] And the fascist agency, by utilizing the petty bourgeoisie as a battering ram, by overwhelming all obstacles in its path, does a thorough job. [ā¦] When a state turns fascist, it doesnāt only mean that the forms and methods of government are changed [ā¦] but it means, primarily and above all, that the workersā organizations are annihilated; that the proletariat is reduced to an amorphous state; and that a system of administration is created which penetrates deeply into the masses and which serves to frustrate the independent crystallization of the proletariat.
In my opinion, wrt building coalition between liberals and communists, there tends to be a real failure by all parties, Marxist communists and liberals alike, to orient the alienated individual within the class or ideological milieu. Liberals can really only see the alienated individual; whereas commies, who claim to be materialists, can view the class/ideological superstructure, or sometimes reluctantly the individual, but almost never both at the same time. Mfs never read/donāt understand Theses on Feuerbach and it shows.
Which is to say liberalism and communism canāt really be allies, but individual liberals, who we might call progressives, more concerned with rights and human emancipation than preserving private property, can be won over to the demands of class struggle, especially as the conditions of struggle introduce sharp contradictions into their lives and the lives of the people around them. At this point the demands of their class outweigh the explanations furnished by their ideology and alliances can be forged between members of the fractured liberal or social democratic workers, and the communist/socialists who (hopefully) have prepared the field of struggle for the intensifying conflict.
Tldr: noone has a monopoly on being insufferable and maybe we could try not demonizing each other for like 15 seconds and see each other as rational people doing our best, reacting to rapidly changing conditions, that will result in pretty serious lose/lose final consequences for libs and commies alike if we canāt resist the actual fascists together.
But now Iāve been led away from the topic of the post article, proving that we are doomed to become what we most strongly condemn.
Not strange at all. Mostly the people shitting on the libs around here are ātankiesā or whatever flavor gets the fascists more points. Itās simple math.
there is not and never has been any historical evidence of a red-brown alliance. Communists, even at the height and horror of Stalinist purges, were never fascist. Fascism is something different, and the urge to conflate the two just makes you seem dangerously uneducated on the subject. No, worse than that, because misunderstanding and miscommunicating the nature of fascism is actually a boon to the fascists! It is in essence no different than when Stalin intentionally mischaracterized social democracy as being āthe moderate wing of fascismā and worse than actual Nazism in order to give himself political cover in the lead up to Molotov-Ribbentrop.
So when you deceive yourself and others about the nature of fascism, you are aiding the fascists. So like donāt do that.
But this still has nothing to do with the article or post, talk about living rent-free
Heās not saying thereās a red-brown alliance. Heās saying all these supposed reds are actually browns, or useful idiots.
Apologies for the long post that largely agrees with what you had to say :p To give some background to the uniniated, the theory of āSocial Facismā as described gives a historical perspective into so-called āred-brown unityā leading up until WW2.
The idea of social fascism, that social democrats are āobjectively the moderate wing of fascismā as Stalin put it, intensified by SocDem authoritarian anti-left policies, lead to even greater hostility from the Communists against the Liberals than the Naziās themselves at the time.
So technically, there was a red-brown (Communist-Nazi) alliance within Prussia in order to take down the SocDems, the Comms were obviously more ideologically aligned with socdems but felt they were the main thing preventing progress and thus wanted to speed up their demise.
We all know how collaborating with the Naziās turned out:
It turns out that by the communists temporarily aligning against liberals with the fascists in what today would probably be known as āaccelerationismā, we headed from social democracy to concentration camps in 10 years.
And as you say, fascism is typically more obvious:
And while there are elements of logic to such a conclusion of āsocial fascismā especially when today you have every āsocial democratā or āliberalā capitaluting heavily rightwards and forming alliances with the far-right (France etc.) BUT As you say, and as history has shown, muddying the waters about the true nature of fascism pulls wool over the eyes of those with potential to affect change and prevent the rise true fascism. Which is growing every day.
And finally, it reeks of the unfortunate leftist āpurity testā behaviour which weakens unity and divides potential allies.
Anyway, when I read this theory it opened my eyes a tonne to the folly of refusing to collaborate with liberals. While I still believe liberal and center right policy, along with intense anti-left propaganda, are the reason for the rise of fascism today (overton window, ratcheting effect, disillusionment with electoral politics due to ineffective and oppressive governance that only benefits the wealthy).
Despite this by ostracising and refusing to collaborate with liberals we shoot ourselves in the foot by being so obsessed with purity that we reject reality. Perfect is the enemy of good. All progress is good provided it takes us along the right path and does not cut off the path to something greater.
I love this so much.
I didnāt really have the time or energy to go into the supporting logic, for as youāve just demonstrated its a very involved argument that involves a lot of oft ignored history of the period after the crushing defeat of the German working class uprising (1923, '24) but before the Nazis took power in the wake of the Reichstag fire ('33, '34). Which honestly Iām not great on anyway, I appreciate your insight, slight factual correction that just makes the point even more urgently, and any book recommendations!
So while we are providing clarification and context to the uninitiated, I dug out Trotskyās definition of fascism from 1932 since we are being so adamant about properly defining it:
In my opinion, wrt building coalition between liberals and communists, there tends to be a real failure by all parties, Marxist communists and liberals alike, to orient the alienated individual within the class or ideological milieu. Liberals can really only see the alienated individual; whereas commies, who claim to be materialists, can view the class/ideological superstructure, or sometimes reluctantly the individual, but almost never both at the same time. Mfs never read/donāt understand Theses on Feuerbach and it shows.
Which is to say liberalism and communism canāt really be allies, but individual liberals, who we might call progressives, more concerned with rights and human emancipation than preserving private property, can be won over to the demands of class struggle, especially as the conditions of struggle introduce sharp contradictions into their lives and the lives of the people around them. At this point the demands of their class outweigh the explanations furnished by their ideology and alliances can be forged between members of the fractured liberal or social democratic workers, and the communist/socialists who (hopefully) have prepared the field of struggle for the intensifying conflict.
Tldr: noone has a monopoly on being insufferable and maybe we could try not demonizing each other for like 15 seconds and see each other as rational people doing our best, reacting to rapidly changing conditions, that will result in pretty serious lose/lose final consequences for libs and commies alike if we canāt resist the actual fascists together.
But now Iāve been led away from the topic of the post article, proving that we are doomed to become what we most strongly condemn.
Itās really not that complicated
Excuse me? Can you give me more details about what you are trying to say?