Exit polls have Meloni’s coalition to have 45% of the vote. The imperial core is falling to fascism left, right and centre. Well, right and centre anyway. If we want a revolution we must hurry - I fear it may soon be too late to hold our ground against the fascists.

Source

  • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Extracting value BY crushing worker movements is pretty par-for-the-course for bourgeois democracy also: just look at what the US did to latin america, or its own workers movements. They are one in the same, and bourgeois democracies have really proven themselves to be much better at it.

    It can easily be argued that there has been no safer shell for capitalist rule / domination, than bourgeois democracy. Fascism was a different form that tried, and failed to do what bourgeois democracy does much better.

    • carpe_modo@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Would it be fair to say that fascism is a feature of liberal democracy? Or at least that liberal democracy isn’t exclusive of fascism?

      • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I dunno, I honestly hate the term because its so heterodox: ask 10 communists to define fascism and you’ll get 10 different answers, and 99% of the time none of them are anything that some liberal democracies aren’t doing or haven’t done.

        IMO as communists we should focus on the horrors of colonialism, and make sure people see US and british colonialism as even more evil than 20s-40s axis powers. “fascism”'s use as a term is borderline western-supremacist at this point, it lets europe and the US off the hook, and puts all the hate on these dead, temporary, and unstable political forms that are only allowed to be publicly demonized because they attacked white people, a big no-no in public discourse.

      • darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        Not really the former. In a true sense fascism was a thing in Europe in the 1920s and 30s. People, including on the left like to toss about the word “fascist” as a descriptor for extreme reactionary politics because it’s easily and instantly understand and has a demonizing characteristic and it’s not untrue (and indeed your average reactionary person often admires part or whole the fascist experiment and often consciously or unconsciously tries to replicate it and there are even elements of the bourgeoisie who likely lust after openly reviving it) but it’s not entirely academically accurate either.

        What we have now is not fascism but fascism was unstable (look how long it lasted and the internal problems it had) compared to something like neo-liberalism and the current global NATO led order of barbarity, exploitation, and violence; in a real sense the US carried on the Nazis work but in a smarter way.

        We may never see the exact creature fascism again rise to power. Which isn’t to say we won’t potentially see extreme, violent reactionary-ism rise to power and tear off the kind mask of liberal bourgeois ‘democracy’, just that it will likely be different even if it has similarities.

        Fascism was capitalism in crisis and distress in the 20th century Europe. IF capitalism enters another state of extreme distress and pressure by proletarian movements it is possible elements of the bourgeoisie may dust off fascism or something like it in a desperate, ultimately self-defeating move to defend themselves.

        However you’ll notice despite being the inheritor of the European empires, the grand defender of capitalism, the chosen knight of capital against communism, and overall a very reactionary, racist, sexist, anti-worker, imperialist murder machine, the US has in the decades since WW2 not once dusted off fascism and toyed with going that way and abandoning their well-worn puppet show of liberal democracy.

        Because to some degree it works better. It’s stable. It allows genocide, brutalizing, imperialism, and neo-colonialism of the global south with buy-in from the national-level workers whose lifestyle is maintained off this system.

        So the thing to say is liberalism is reactionary. Fascism was extreme reaction. Liberalism though it likes to pretend to be the nice form of bourgeois domination is not at all averse to embracing extreme reaction. Look no further than liberals and their support for open nazis in Ukraine, downplaying their crimes, accusing the Russians with projection of the very same, frothing at the mouth in a racist rage against Russians that would make Hitler proud.

      • B0rodin@lemmygrad.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Certainly in my opinion it is very much the former. It is a defense mechanism to destroy progressive movements when they threaten bourgeois rule. It is bourgeois dictatorship in its most dangerous and poisonous form.

        • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 years ago

          Certainly in my opinion it is very much the former. It is a defense mechanism to destroy progressive movements when they threaten bourgeois rule.

          Bourgeois-democratic governments have always done this, and are far better at it. Look at the history of any capitalist country and you’ll find them strangling organized labor.

    • B0rodin@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Not at all. Fascism has a specific goal as an extension of bourgeois democracy. It is self destructing but with it used as an immediate last resort “cure” to kill off worker’s movements when they grow too powerful. Bourgeois democracy does so over time coincidentally in its drive to extract resources. Fascism does so targetedly, more quickly. It is designed as soon as it has done so to destroy itself again to make room for the reinstatement of bourgeois democracy. But it remains still a method by which to destroy the left in the most effective manner possible, more so than bourgeois democracy which does not destroy the left but merely suppresses it. Between suppression and destriction especially in this early nascent period for the western left I would choose suppression. Even Stalin deigned to fight with bourgeois democracy against fascism. To do anything else is pure ideology with little regard for possible material outcomes.

      • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Fascism does so targetedly, more quickly.

        Smedley butler:

        I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

        • B0rodin@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Fair enough actually - you are right. I think the source of my error came from considering bourgeois democracy solely as a form of governance, thus separating it from imperialism and focusing only on domestic issues, not international ones. I take the previous comments back.