Hexbear

9 points

3 years ago

As I explained in my previous post: in the presence of an established and popular revolutionary party, social democrat reformists act to defend capital against them just as fascists do. Therefore, they will continually side with the fascists and can be considered, for all intents and purposes, “social fascists”.

Considering what the SPD did in the 20s and 30s (which is the entire subject of this thread, and every comment I’ve made in it), the theory at least has merit.

report

Malspoken [she/her]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

1 point

3 years ago

I would still disagree. Social Dems don’t meet any definition of fascism. It sounds like you’re just declaring anyone who’s not revolutionary as a fascists. But fascists are revolutionary minded as well.

report

[ - ]

10 points

3 years ago

But fascists are revolutionary minded as well.

Fascism occurs in order to protect the power of capital when faced with revolution. Social democracy also exists to do this. This is why Bourgeois will support both those movements, but never communism. Make of those material motivations what you will.

report

Malspoken [she/her]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

1 point

3 years ago

Fascists over throw the government. There’s a significant difference between an actual revolution or a coup vs just electoralism.

I can’t make any comment on if a bourgeois class ever supported a left wing revolution but only because I’m not super well read on global politics or much history.

report

[ - ]

6 points

3 years ago

Forget about the specific goverment, because that’s largely not the important part. As materialists, we believe that the mode of production primarily shapes society.

Fascists largely maintain the current mode of production, as do social democrats. They aren’t really revolutionary in any sense other than aesthetic, and that’s why they will get large support from bourgeois in order to prevent revolutionary movements from gaining power.

report

Malspoken [she/her]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

1 point

3 years ago

No. Modern day fascists are actually revolutionary minded by definition. Social Democrats are not revolutionary minded. Even aestheticly. The social aspects in the states are undeniably as important as the material conditions of people. Marx ignored it and couldn’t figure out why the US never mad a leftward lurch. There’s a social aspect to Marxism that he completely missed which is why Marx is a fun read but is ultimately outdated

report

[ - ]

5 points

3 years ago

Social Democrats are not revolutionary minded. Even aestheticly.

Correct, and my implication this was the case was accidental.

Nothing about the social aspect of society disproves that the SPD acted in defense of capitalism, and thereby assisted the fascists in their rise.

which is why Marx is a fun read but is ultimately outdated

Undoubtedly, there are outdated aspects of Marxism, but with a statement like that, you’re going to need to produce more evidence than nothing at all.

report