Welcome to /r/AskSocialists, a community for both socialists and non-socialists to ask general questions directed at socialists within a friendly, relaxed and welcoming environment. Please be mindful of our rules before participating and join the subreddit r/AmericanCommunist:
R1. No Non-Socialist Answers, if you are not a socialist don’t answer questions.
R2. No Trolling, including concern trolling.
R3. No Sectarianism, there's plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
R4. We fully and firmly support Palestine, Novorossiya, and Multipolarity.
R5. We stand with Iran
R6. Good Faith and High Quality Conversation
Want a user flair to indicate your broad tendency? Respond to this comment with "!Marxist", or "!Visitor" and the bot will assign it.
Communists, capitalists, monarchists, and anarchists once worked quite well together to literally defeat some very nasty fascists. Twice actually. Those were different times and hopefully different circumstances, but infighting over ideologies has never served the people when survival is the immediate goal.
Here is what Engels had to say in the Principles of Communism. I think it sums it up:
"Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.
These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.
It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.
It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences."
It should be pointed out here that Engles is talking about the transition from feudalism and aristocracy to liberalism, not fascists, who are clinging to nationalist identity and bourgeoise domination.
What is progressive at one stage is no longer progressive after that point, and we should not entertain reactionaries
He didn’t talk about fascism, but talked about cooperation as long as they follow the common policy with them. In question was not the transition from feudalism to capitalism, but the implementation of progressive policies, such as the 10-point program (12 points are mentioned in the Principles). He said that they favor some of the same measures but do not see them as a transition to communism, but rather as measures that would end social inequality. In question were policies such as the establishment of the national bank, progressive taxation, free universal education, etc.
It’s not talking about fascism, but the same logic can be applied. If the precondition for socialism is the establishment of a democratic constitution, and if communists were in the period of struggle against feudalism in favor of cooperation with petty-bourgeois democrats, and even the liberal bourgeoisie, to establish a democratic constitution. Why would they have a different approach in the instance of a struggle against fascism? The important point, however, is that in neither case should communists subordinate themself to the demands of the broader coalition. Or better said, there must strive for the establishment of an independent workers’ party, and not reduce themself to “applauding chorus” or subordinate to the demands of petty-bourgeois parties.
The contradiction would be in the period of socialist revolution. As in the October Revolution and the German Revolution of 1918–1919. In which case, the limitation to such measures becomes conservative, even reactionary.
Engels was speaking without foreknowledge of how pretty much every communist revolution from then out would devolve into an oppressive authoritarian regime. It seems to me that he perhaps overestimated how well a wholesale overthrow and hard-reboot of an entire society's governmental structure would go down in practice. The stability of a society comes from the trust and stability of its institutions, and what the past century has told us is that it takes a while for a newly-formed governmental structure to mature to stability, during which time they're vulnerable to authoritarian takeover.
So to that point, it stands to reason that perhaps Engels' thesis should be reconsidered, and the value of seizing control over existing institutions and power structures and reforming them towards socialism is a more reliable path to achieving a just and equitable society for the ruling class, rather than trying to blow up that old system and build something from scratch.
I’m not aware of any violent revolution in countries with democratic constitutions. Pretty much all so-called authoritarian takeovers, as you say, happened either in dictatorships or semi-feudal countries, in either case, countries with virtually no presence of democracy. You can reproach them for failing to introduce democracy, and I would agree. But, at the time of revolution, Russia was first an absolute monarchy (February Revolution), then a “representative” government with no public support (October Revolution). China was a failing state, broken by imperialism, feudalism, and warlordism. Eastern Europe was not democratic. South-East Asia and Africa were waging national liberation struggles against colonialism. Cuba was a dictatorship under Fulgencio Batista. We cannot really talk about authoritarian takeovers, as these countries were not democracies in the first place.
Marx and Engels discuss communism and the proletarian revolution as an extension of democracy. About the organized working-class movement, not conspiracies or coup d'états.
Sure. But you’re narrowing the goalposts to support your conclusion. We have a statistically significant number of examples where socialist revolutions have resulted in authoritarian regimes. We also have a statistically significant number of examples of revolutions that weren’t socialist leading to nascent democracies that have collapsed back into authoritarian regimes within a decade, often when the new leader faces their first electoral defeat. This supports the conclusion that new governments go through a period of vulnerability while their institutions mature and peoples’ faith, dedication, and loyalty to those institutions solidifies.
Like it’s not an issue with communist revolutions, but of revolutions generally. It’s a lot easier to get people out on the streets to protest the government, and even topple that government. What happens after the government falls is a much more fraught endeavour - authoritarians love a power vacuum, and turfing out a civilian government doesn’t do anything about the military that’s just hanging around in the wings.
That’s a lot of really interesting scholarship on the issues faced by revolutions. I listened to a fascinating episode of the Novara Media podcast about it recently that’s worth a listen. Link: https://youtu.be/yTRkIY6NQhA?si=zQbzAi9VLcgb5yvu
When it's a real fascist threat, communists are willing to work with anyone. The problem today is that self described communists will actually argue Trump and his copy cats are fascists, they're not, they're the latest packaging of right wing liberalism
There’s a very large distinction between appointed officials (In organisations like Unions and NGOs), politicians who identify as Liberal and the general public who identifies as Liberal.
Unless socialists have the means to suppress Soc Dems and liberals when the dust settles, were just reempowering the Bourgeoise to return to their exploitation of the Proletariat.
Other socialist movements fared no better. Had fascism grown and it's contradictions become more unsustainable we may have had sufficient European class consciousness to actually achieve socialism.
Instead, more moderate liberals beat back the fascists and allowed another century of Bourgeoise domination
The fascists sustained themselves off of conquest and subjugation, many Germans looked back on it as a time they had ample employment, either in the Military, or arms industries. The contradictions of fascism would not have been apparent to the average German, as their needs were met. Add that to the persecution of the Trade unions, Social Democrats, and Communists who could've organized. Had they won, class consciousness would've been far harder to achieve than in bourgeois democracy, as the very ability to gain access to the knowledge, to the arms, and the ability to organize, would be significantly hindered by the totalitarian nature of facism.
The contradictions were as inevitable as the contradictions of capitalism. If fascism sustains itself through loot, do we not see the inevitable end when the conquering is done?
And subjugation. What is there to want for when the slavs are either killed en masse, or used as slave labor for agriculture or industry? With this being said, would any socialist not find it preferable to be in a bourgeois democracy where they can organize and spread class consciousness, rather than a totalitarian dictatorship where the unions, socdems, and communists are unable to organize because they are dead?
I agree there are many ways it is similar to liberal democracy, but the important distinctions are the mass genocide of those who would feel compelled to spread class consciousness, the totalitarian nature of facism forbidding external knowledge, and keeping a close eye on dissidents through organizations like the Gestapo (far more so than even the CIA or NSA).
The whole of the population of Germany couldn't be sustained by slave labour any more than Rome or the American slave States. It errodes paid labour from the German Proletariat, and there will come a time the New agricultural land runs out.
Is it preferable to live under fascism or liberal democracy? I'd say that question is irrelevant. Both subjugate the proletariat. Saying that easy subjugation is suitable in the face of hard liberty is weak. The French revolution was progressive and significant despite its hardship.
The question is far from irrelevant. You and I having this discourse would be impossible under facism, we would be labeled communists and trade unionists, and summarily put to death. Once again, ignoring everything else, it would be preferable to sow class consciousness among the proletariat under a bourgeois democracy, than to be killed under fascism because of an inability to work with the bourgeois.
The internal contradictions of facism would be rendered far less apparent, and organization hindered far more, because those who would speak about such things or attempt to organize, would be killed.
I almost feel as if I am speaking with a wall. Your unwillingness to cooperate is the weak position. It is the position that would render any attempt at actual socialism unfeasable, as those who would attempt it would be dead.
Yes, sooner or later the contradictions would present, but in Weimar, and in the US today, the contradictions are/were already presenting. There is no reason to introduce further oppression, making our goals significantly more difficult in the intrest of aura farming and ideological purity.
Ideological purity matters when the revolution will dictate the terms of life under the emerging regime. A revisionist or reactionary regime will not bring about socialism or the liberation of workers. Socialism in name only will be oppression. Cooperation to the ends of oppression is facilitation of that oppression.
If authoritarianism (fascist or any other sort) were sufficient to silence real dissent and progress there would have been no revolution ever. We see that revolution is possible under all sorts of repression. What has so far failed to occur is for capitalism or fascism to fully consume themselves. Others may be interested in prolonging that death, but I am eager for a real change which will occur from the inevitable conclusion of the capitalist (and fascist) need to consume. Alleviating that pressure through reform buys time, but it buys time spent living under that exploitation. Why facilitate that?
Nobody is arguing in favor of prolonging either system. I argue for building sufficient support and class consciousness such that the state may be seized entirely, I am a social democrat only out of pragmatism. Barring that, if the situation were destabilized as it was during the Russian Provisional Government, then a revolt might be something I view as feasible.
What I do not think would be feasible, is any revolt under a stable government with full control over the reigns of state, such that they could mount an adequate response, as would happen should the fascists win.
It is not about reform, to prolong, but instead to seize the reigns of state. Even Marx saw potential in the US for socialism to succeed. In a way, it did with Roosevelt, who did exactly what I described earlier, though he did not complete the transformation out of respect for a republic unfortunately.
Shadowboxing with positions I have never expressed, locations I have never provided, and people I am not comparing myself to, only to not address the substance of the question.
I literally did. You ask under what conditions is cooperation with social democrats acceptable for socialists. It is acceptable within the scope of an anti-imperialist alliance, but not within the heart of imperialism for the benefit of labour aristocracy.
Word of advice; work with whoever is willing to work with you to accomplish the same goals. Waiting around for the planets to align for every group youre willing to cooperate with to agree to accomplish shared goals will leave you waiting for a very long time.
It’s a lot easier to point out the pitfalls of revolution than to propose alternatives, unfortunately.
From my personal perspective, the one place where there really needs to be something approaching a “burn it all down and start over” revolution is the United States. American Imperialist Capitalism is an actively destabilizing global force that regularly intervenes in the democratic process of other countries to prevent socialist reform or institute regime change where that fails. US institutions are also profoundly and intentionally flawed in ways that are calcified against attempts to reform them.
However, faith in those institutions has already been intentionally undermined by a billionaire and corporate elite intent on orchestrating a fascist takeover, so like…how much is there really left to lose? I fear that the one big hope is that the situation deteriorates to the point where it’s no longer possible for a sufficient quantity of the working class to ignore, and a full blown populist uprising gives power to a resurgent progressive movement that uses the Democratic Party as a vehicle to win a broad mandate to implement sweeping reforms.
My own country, Canada, I have a lot more faith in. We already have a socialist party with a long history and lots of loyal supporters. We got crushed in the last election due to anti-Trump strategic voting, but the party is in a rebuilding phase right now and there’s time before the next election for that to happen. A number of the leadership candidates look promising. Our working class is under similar pressures to workers in the US, and popular American socialists like Zohran Mamdani or Bernie Sanders get a lot of social media traction up here. Our Conservative Party has had a lot of success parroting Trump, which backfired with Trump’s attacks on Canada. So my hope is that with a new leadership candidate the NDP can get enough momentum to build a power base capable of bringing in material reforms, and that those gain enough momentum to propel additional reforms. Support for capitalism is still super high up here, but people are more open to socialist policies than Americans even still. The US is a major reason for that, and US corporate influence is a massive factor in us not doing more to help the working class. So I dunno…there’s a lot of “I hope that” and “maybe” in there, but it is what it is. I have more faith in progress through democratic pressure than I do in the capability of a populist uprising to result in a working democratic and socialist society, and I’m not quite at the point where I’d accept a socialist autocracy.
The better question is will Socdems actually ally with us? In the Last Election before the Rise of Hitler the German Communist Party offered a final hour coalition with the German Social Democrats inorder to prevent the Conservative Liberals from coming to power because as the Communist Parties Candidate Correctly predicted "a Vote for Hindenburg is a Vote for Hitler." The SPD Refused and aquiesed to Hindenburgs new Government thus allowing Hitler into the Chancellorship. And its not just the Germans, The French Social Democrats actively fought to maintain there Fascistic Colonial Domination of Indo China and Alegria. The Communists and Socialists have always been the most willing and open advocates of fighting fascism, real question you should ask yourself is will you Support us in that Fight?
Socialists end up always being authoritarian monsters who can't get enough money, ever.
You end up getting a few freebees, pretending you live a socialist utopia, while your government plays with big bucks in the capitalist world economy. You essentially become enslaved.
I would say it depends on the situation, for example I'm a Centrist-Marxist so I recommend to form a large authoritative Socialist coalition against fascism in a Proportional Republic.
However, 90% of the time Democratic Socialism is incompletely reliable. The people need scientific socialist majority rule and improve trade union methods.
I don't understand how someone can be a "centrist Marxist." Centrism is neoliberalism, and neoliberalism and Marxism are almost inherently contradictory.
According to Wikipedia, it means having moderate views on revolution and reform by teaching both reform as a vital need and revolution as an emergency option. Wheras, I'm generally a Marxist on every other social economic seven values topic.
Oh, so like "centrism" as a modifier of Marxism, not Centrism + Marxism. This is why I have such an issue with all of these labels.
What we all agree on is that the working class is getting fucked, and the capitalists are the ones doing the fucking. A revolutionary vanguard overthrowing society to be complete remade in a socialist vision is an inspiring thought, but it's proven a process deeply vulnerable to authoritarian takeover and outside disruption.
I get the criticism too that more "incremental" approaches are bound to lose steam and be hijacked by liberals and capitalists, and ultimately function as little else beyond a "release valve" to dissipate any momentum that a buildup of populist anger among the working class might achieve.
So it seems to me that over the long run, the dual strategy of working to weaponize the existing levers of power against the capitalist class to the greatest extent possible is a more viable strategy for achieving LASTING social change. And if an opportunity to more directly attack the ruling class presents itself, WITHOUT completely throwing out the institutions that provide social stability and cohesion, then all is the better. Millions died in the Chinese revolution because they tried to enact reforms too quickly and the system buckled and caused a famine. And they still ended up a capitalist economy just decades later.
No isnt that how we start out? Quickest way to help the poor would be giving them houses no? Thats a game changer. You actually own some where they cant kick you out of.
The KPD (communist party of germany) and SPD (social democrat party of germany) refusing to work together is the most significant reason Hitler got to power. When Hitler got to power, the first people to go to the camps were SPD politicians and communists. The communists assumed that the threat of fascism would be short lived and pass through, and so the party became more and more comprised of accelerationists after their electoral and paramilitary defeats until they were all rounded up and thrown in camps. The SPD thought they could win back the office, and so they refused to take up the strategies of the KPD until they were all rounded up and thrown in camps. The conservatives (right liberals) thought they could manipulate Hitler back to relative moderacy, they were treated far better because of their willingness to compromise, and they refused to form a coalition on pure ideological basis with both the SPD and the KPD. It still shot them in the foot, many of them were jews, many were executives that were seen as unfit for control, and they lost all political power outside of a few fringes by the death of Hindenberg.
Anybody who labels themself as any form of socialist or communist who would not be willing to form this coalition doesn't understand the basic concepts of the belief they champion, an unarguable foundation of which is the inter-reliance of humanity for itself in all material circumstances. This idea proceeds historical materialism.
Once fascism gains enough power, politically and culturally, there becomes a tipping point wherein the administration cannot be dealt with electorally and has more manpower than any opposition and so can win in any military fight. This is why the USSR had little choice but to form the non-aggression pact for long enough that they could prepare to participate in the war.
Fascism is an immediate threat to both liberalism and socialism, as well as the entire species. Liberalism is a very slow threat, and can be dealt with later. Fascists need to be removed as quickly as possible and by nearly any means possible, while liberals have less urgency and require less urgency to confront.
If you were in a communist party or a socdem or a liberal party with a leader that is unwilling to form a coalition to confront fascist, no matter what they believe that person needs to be treated as a fascist sympathizer and by extension no different in any meaningful capacity to the fascists themselves. The thing is, liberals are often far more willing to engage with and entertain fascists, and so again any liberal standing in the way must be treated the same.
Like another user pointed out, there have been many times where these ideological differences were put aside in order to remove a previous or new order, a huge example was the founding of the USSR. The problem is, that after this coalition ends because the need for mutual aid ended, it lead to one of the bloodiest civil wars in history, yet it still lead to one that resulted in the industrialization of the USSR such that it was able to compete against the nazis, even at an unfathomable human cost. I can't make many promises about history, but I can almost promise you that Russia wouldve been in the same place that China was in 1939 if there was not a different order, and so wouldve lost the eastern front, and the nazis wouldve indisputably won the war as they wouldve had significant manpower to out-maneuver on the western front.
These coalitions can be incredibly costly in the end, but will almost always result in a better outcome than if that previous order survived.
The only reason that the nazis lost ww2 was because the final possible alliance in a long, long list of rejected ones between socialists and liberals was made, and it was made so late that it claimed 53 million lives, 3% of the worlds population, in 6 years. You NEVER want to get to the point where this is the only choice, but that will happen every single time that the coalition is not formed sooner.
I agree completely, this is the exact position that I hold. I do not like Stalinists, but I would want a coalition of anyone willing to oppose the fascists. The tragedy of Weimar was unwillingness to cooperate, the SPD and KPD disagreed on much, but they were still socialists. If the Reichsbanner paramilitaries of SPD were as militant as the Rotfront, and worked together, perhaps the situation would be different.
Hell, I voted CENTRIST in the last election. Harris doesn't share too much in common with me but I voted for her because at that time I really needed allies. I wish others had put aside their moral high horse but here we are.
That said, I'd LOVE to see a truly socialist leaning candidate, along with a congress to support take hold.
I am in a similar situation. I think community organizing is commendable, but if people do not vote against the fascists because it would be "participating in bourgeois democracy", they will find themselves in the same place the KPD did in Weimar Germany.
The issue is that people concede to voting for centrists to stave off the fascists, and then just...stop. This is why governments all over the world are run by neoliberals, even though people dislike them and would rather see more leftist / socialist policies brought into place.
The Democratic Party has been wholly consumed by corporate and capitalist interests and no longer serves the working class. The only way to change that is to take over the party from within. That means aggressive organizing, fundraising, advocacy, and running socialist candidates for office in primary challenges against corporate Democrats at all levels of power. It's an enormous undertaking, and requires everyone to play their part.
Welcome to /r/AskSocialists, a community for both socialists and non-socialists to ask general questions directed at socialists within a friendly, relaxed and welcoming environment. Please be mindful of our rules before participating and join the subreddit r/AmericanCommunist:
R1. No Non-Socialist Answers, if you are not a socialist don’t answer questions.
R2. No Trolling, including concern trolling.
R3. No Sectarianism, there's plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
R4. We fully and firmly support Palestine, Novorossiya, and Multipolarity.
R5. We stand with Iran
R6. Good Faith and High Quality Conversation
Want a user flair to indicate your broad tendency? Respond to this comment with "!Marxist", or "!Visitor" and the bot will assign it.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Communists, capitalists, monarchists, and anarchists once worked quite well together to literally defeat some very nasty fascists. Twice actually. Those were different times and hopefully different circumstances, but infighting over ideologies has never served the people when survival is the immediate goal.
And then they turned on their own people.
Here is what Engels had to say in the Principles of Communism. I think it sums it up:
"Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.
These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.
It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.
It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences."
It should be pointed out here that Engles is talking about the transition from feudalism and aristocracy to liberalism, not fascists, who are clinging to nationalist identity and bourgeoise domination.
What is progressive at one stage is no longer progressive after that point, and we should not entertain reactionaries
He didn’t talk about fascism, but talked about cooperation as long as they follow the common policy with them. In question was not the transition from feudalism to capitalism, but the implementation of progressive policies, such as the 10-point program (12 points are mentioned in the Principles). He said that they favor some of the same measures but do not see them as a transition to communism, but rather as measures that would end social inequality. In question were policies such as the establishment of the national bank, progressive taxation, free universal education, etc.
It’s not talking about fascism, but the same logic can be applied. If the precondition for socialism is the establishment of a democratic constitution, and if communists were in the period of struggle against feudalism in favor of cooperation with petty-bourgeois democrats, and even the liberal bourgeoisie, to establish a democratic constitution. Why would they have a different approach in the instance of a struggle against fascism? The important point, however, is that in neither case should communists subordinate themself to the demands of the broader coalition. Or better said, there must strive for the establishment of an independent workers’ party, and not reduce themself to “applauding chorus” or subordinate to the demands of petty-bourgeois parties.
The contradiction would be in the period of socialist revolution. As in the October Revolution and the German Revolution of 1918–1919. In which case, the limitation to such measures becomes conservative, even reactionary.
Engels was speaking without foreknowledge of how pretty much every communist revolution from then out would devolve into an oppressive authoritarian regime. It seems to me that he perhaps overestimated how well a wholesale overthrow and hard-reboot of an entire society's governmental structure would go down in practice. The stability of a society comes from the trust and stability of its institutions, and what the past century has told us is that it takes a while for a newly-formed governmental structure to mature to stability, during which time they're vulnerable to authoritarian takeover.
So to that point, it stands to reason that perhaps Engels' thesis should be reconsidered, and the value of seizing control over existing institutions and power structures and reforming them towards socialism is a more reliable path to achieving a just and equitable society for the ruling class, rather than trying to blow up that old system and build something from scratch.
I’m not aware of any violent revolution in countries with democratic constitutions. Pretty much all so-called authoritarian takeovers, as you say, happened either in dictatorships or semi-feudal countries, in either case, countries with virtually no presence of democracy. You can reproach them for failing to introduce democracy, and I would agree. But, at the time of revolution, Russia was first an absolute monarchy (February Revolution), then a “representative” government with no public support (October Revolution). China was a failing state, broken by imperialism, feudalism, and warlordism. Eastern Europe was not democratic. South-East Asia and Africa were waging national liberation struggles against colonialism. Cuba was a dictatorship under Fulgencio Batista. We cannot really talk about authoritarian takeovers, as these countries were not democracies in the first place.
Marx and Engels discuss communism and the proletarian revolution as an extension of democracy. About the organized working-class movement, not conspiracies or coup d'états.
Sure. But you’re narrowing the goalposts to support your conclusion. We have a statistically significant number of examples where socialist revolutions have resulted in authoritarian regimes. We also have a statistically significant number of examples of revolutions that weren’t socialist leading to nascent democracies that have collapsed back into authoritarian regimes within a decade, often when the new leader faces their first electoral defeat. This supports the conclusion that new governments go through a period of vulnerability while their institutions mature and peoples’ faith, dedication, and loyalty to those institutions solidifies.
Like it’s not an issue with communist revolutions, but of revolutions generally. It’s a lot easier to get people out on the streets to protest the government, and even topple that government. What happens after the government falls is a much more fraught endeavour - authoritarians love a power vacuum, and turfing out a civilian government doesn’t do anything about the military that’s just hanging around in the wings.
That’s a lot of really interesting scholarship on the issues faced by revolutions. I listened to a fascinating episode of the Novara Media podcast about it recently that’s worth a listen. Link: https://youtu.be/yTRkIY6NQhA?si=zQbzAi9VLcgb5yvu
What other options do you have? Trust in the divine right of kings?
Right here: ACP Will Work with All Anti-Imperialists
When it's a real fascist threat, communists are willing to work with anyone. The problem today is that self described communists will actually argue Trump and his copy cats are fascists, they're not, they're the latest packaging of right wing liberalism
Socialists can't even work with one another?
There’s a very large distinction between appointed officials (In organisations like Unions and NGOs), politicians who identify as Liberal and the general public who identifies as Liberal.
LeftCom here to answer an emphatic no.
Unless socialists have the means to suppress Soc Dems and liberals when the dust settles, were just reempowering the Bourgeoise to return to their exploitation of the Proletariat.
This line of thought worked poorly in practice for the KPD.
Other socialist movements fared no better. Had fascism grown and it's contradictions become more unsustainable we may have had sufficient European class consciousness to actually achieve socialism.
Instead, more moderate liberals beat back the fascists and allowed another century of Bourgeoise domination
The fascists sustained themselves off of conquest and subjugation, many Germans looked back on it as a time they had ample employment, either in the Military, or arms industries. The contradictions of fascism would not have been apparent to the average German, as their needs were met. Add that to the persecution of the Trade unions, Social Democrats, and Communists who could've organized. Had they won, class consciousness would've been far harder to achieve than in bourgeois democracy, as the very ability to gain access to the knowledge, to the arms, and the ability to organize, would be significantly hindered by the totalitarian nature of facism.
The contradictions were as inevitable as the contradictions of capitalism. If fascism sustains itself through loot, do we not see the inevitable end when the conquering is done?
And subjugation. What is there to want for when the slavs are either killed en masse, or used as slave labor for agriculture or industry? With this being said, would any socialist not find it preferable to be in a bourgeois democracy where they can organize and spread class consciousness, rather than a totalitarian dictatorship where the unions, socdems, and communists are unable to organize because they are dead?
I agree there are many ways it is similar to liberal democracy, but the important distinctions are the mass genocide of those who would feel compelled to spread class consciousness, the totalitarian nature of facism forbidding external knowledge, and keeping a close eye on dissidents through organizations like the Gestapo (far more so than even the CIA or NSA).
The whole of the population of Germany couldn't be sustained by slave labour any more than Rome or the American slave States. It errodes paid labour from the German Proletariat, and there will come a time the New agricultural land runs out.
Is it preferable to live under fascism or liberal democracy? I'd say that question is irrelevant. Both subjugate the proletariat. Saying that easy subjugation is suitable in the face of hard liberty is weak. The French revolution was progressive and significant despite its hardship.
The question is far from irrelevant. You and I having this discourse would be impossible under facism, we would be labeled communists and trade unionists, and summarily put to death. Once again, ignoring everything else, it would be preferable to sow class consciousness among the proletariat under a bourgeois democracy, than to be killed under fascism because of an inability to work with the bourgeois.
The internal contradictions of facism would be rendered far less apparent, and organization hindered far more, because those who would speak about such things or attempt to organize, would be killed.
I almost feel as if I am speaking with a wall. Your unwillingness to cooperate is the weak position. It is the position that would render any attempt at actual socialism unfeasable, as those who would attempt it would be dead.
Yes, sooner or later the contradictions would present, but in Weimar, and in the US today, the contradictions are/were already presenting. There is no reason to introduce further oppression, making our goals significantly more difficult in the intrest of aura farming and ideological purity.
Ideological purity matters when the revolution will dictate the terms of life under the emerging regime. A revisionist or reactionary regime will not bring about socialism or the liberation of workers. Socialism in name only will be oppression. Cooperation to the ends of oppression is facilitation of that oppression.
If authoritarianism (fascist or any other sort) were sufficient to silence real dissent and progress there would have been no revolution ever. We see that revolution is possible under all sorts of repression. What has so far failed to occur is for capitalism or fascism to fully consume themselves. Others may be interested in prolonging that death, but I am eager for a real change which will occur from the inevitable conclusion of the capitalist (and fascist) need to consume. Alleviating that pressure through reform buys time, but it buys time spent living under that exploitation. Why facilitate that?
Nobody is arguing in favor of prolonging either system. I argue for building sufficient support and class consciousness such that the state may be seized entirely, I am a social democrat only out of pragmatism. Barring that, if the situation were destabilized as it was during the Russian Provisional Government, then a revolt might be something I view as feasible.
What I do not think would be feasible, is any revolt under a stable government with full control over the reigns of state, such that they could mount an adequate response, as would happen should the fascists win.
It is not about reform, to prolong, but instead to seize the reigns of state. Even Marx saw potential in the US for socialism to succeed. In a way, it did with Roosevelt, who did exactly what I described earlier, though he did not complete the transformation out of respect for a republic unfortunately.
Didn't Lenin warn against trusting the Liberals? After all, he was one of the leaders of the first successful people's revolution in history.
A people's revolution that collapsed into autocracy, let's not forget.
It's 2025. Social democrats in the US that are pro-imperialist are not the same as Maduro.
Shadowboxing with positions I have never expressed, locations I have never provided, and people I am not comparing myself to, only to not address the substance of the question.
I literally did. You ask under what conditions is cooperation with social democrats acceptable for socialists. It is acceptable within the scope of an anti-imperialist alliance, but not within the heart of imperialism for the benefit of labour aristocracy.
Understandable. What do you consider imperialism? Would it be supporting UKR or USAID? I do not support Isreal, nor incursions into Venezuela.
Imperialism = the head of global financial capital, towards where all supervalue flows through the dollar. That is, the USA.
Very much so.
not blue war criminals
Word of advice; work with whoever is willing to work with you to accomplish the same goals. Waiting around for the planets to align for every group youre willing to cooperate with to agree to accomplish shared goals will leave you waiting for a very long time.
It’s a lot easier to point out the pitfalls of revolution than to propose alternatives, unfortunately.
From my personal perspective, the one place where there really needs to be something approaching a “burn it all down and start over” revolution is the United States. American Imperialist Capitalism is an actively destabilizing global force that regularly intervenes in the democratic process of other countries to prevent socialist reform or institute regime change where that fails. US institutions are also profoundly and intentionally flawed in ways that are calcified against attempts to reform them.
However, faith in those institutions has already been intentionally undermined by a billionaire and corporate elite intent on orchestrating a fascist takeover, so like…how much is there really left to lose? I fear that the one big hope is that the situation deteriorates to the point where it’s no longer possible for a sufficient quantity of the working class to ignore, and a full blown populist uprising gives power to a resurgent progressive movement that uses the Democratic Party as a vehicle to win a broad mandate to implement sweeping reforms.
My own country, Canada, I have a lot more faith in. We already have a socialist party with a long history and lots of loyal supporters. We got crushed in the last election due to anti-Trump strategic voting, but the party is in a rebuilding phase right now and there’s time before the next election for that to happen. A number of the leadership candidates look promising. Our working class is under similar pressures to workers in the US, and popular American socialists like Zohran Mamdani or Bernie Sanders get a lot of social media traction up here. Our Conservative Party has had a lot of success parroting Trump, which backfired with Trump’s attacks on Canada. So my hope is that with a new leadership candidate the NDP can get enough momentum to build a power base capable of bringing in material reforms, and that those gain enough momentum to propel additional reforms. Support for capitalism is still super high up here, but people are more open to socialist policies than Americans even still. The US is a major reason for that, and US corporate influence is a massive factor in us not doing more to help the working class. So I dunno…there’s a lot of “I hope that” and “maybe” in there, but it is what it is. I have more faith in progress through democratic pressure than I do in the capability of a populist uprising to result in a working democratic and socialist society, and I’m not quite at the point where I’d accept a socialist autocracy.
The better question is will Socdems actually ally with us? In the Last Election before the Rise of Hitler the German Communist Party offered a final hour coalition with the German Social Democrats inorder to prevent the Conservative Liberals from coming to power because as the Communist Parties Candidate Correctly predicted "a Vote for Hindenburg is a Vote for Hitler." The SPD Refused and aquiesed to Hindenburgs new Government thus allowing Hitler into the Chancellorship. And its not just the Germans, The French Social Democrats actively fought to maintain there Fascistic Colonial Domination of Indo China and Alegria. The Communists and Socialists have always been the most willing and open advocates of fighting fascism, real question you should ask yourself is will you Support us in that Fight?
Socialists end up always being authoritarian monsters who can't get enough money, ever.
You end up getting a few freebees, pretending you live a socialist utopia, while your government plays with big bucks in the capitalist world economy. You essentially become enslaved.
Social Democrats are capitalists and have stabbed socialists in the back countless times throughout history. You killed Rosa Luxembourg.
I would say it depends on the situation, for example I'm a Centrist-Marxist so I recommend to form a large authoritative Socialist coalition against fascism in a Proportional Republic.
However, 90% of the time Democratic Socialism is incompletely reliable. The people need scientific socialist majority rule and improve trade union methods.
I don't understand how someone can be a "centrist Marxist." Centrism is neoliberalism, and neoliberalism and Marxism are almost inherently contradictory.
According to Wikipedia, it means having moderate views on revolution and reform by teaching both reform as a vital need and revolution as an emergency option. Wheras, I'm generally a Marxist on every other social economic seven values topic.
Oh, so like "centrism" as a modifier of Marxism, not Centrism + Marxism. This is why I have such an issue with all of these labels.
What we all agree on is that the working class is getting fucked, and the capitalists are the ones doing the fucking. A revolutionary vanguard overthrowing society to be complete remade in a socialist vision is an inspiring thought, but it's proven a process deeply vulnerable to authoritarian takeover and outside disruption.
I get the criticism too that more "incremental" approaches are bound to lose steam and be hijacked by liberals and capitalists, and ultimately function as little else beyond a "release valve" to dissipate any momentum that a buildup of populist anger among the working class might achieve.
So it seems to me that over the long run, the dual strategy of working to weaponize the existing levers of power against the capitalist class to the greatest extent possible is a more viable strategy for achieving LASTING social change. And if an opportunity to more directly attack the ruling class presents itself, WITHOUT completely throwing out the institutions that provide social stability and cohesion, then all is the better. Millions died in the Chinese revolution because they tried to enact reforms too quickly and the system buckled and caused a famine. And they still ended up a capitalist economy just decades later.
Correct.
Do we get to seize property in this scenario? The end gaming we seize all the rich peoples houses and divy them up amongst us?
I can’t read sarcasm on Reddit! Was that sarcasm?
No isnt that how we start out? Quickest way to help the poor would be giving them houses no? Thats a game changer. You actually own some where they cant kick you out of.
The KPD (communist party of germany) and SPD (social democrat party of germany) refusing to work together is the most significant reason Hitler got to power. When Hitler got to power, the first people to go to the camps were SPD politicians and communists. The communists assumed that the threat of fascism would be short lived and pass through, and so the party became more and more comprised of accelerationists after their electoral and paramilitary defeats until they were all rounded up and thrown in camps. The SPD thought they could win back the office, and so they refused to take up the strategies of the KPD until they were all rounded up and thrown in camps. The conservatives (right liberals) thought they could manipulate Hitler back to relative moderacy, they were treated far better because of their willingness to compromise, and they refused to form a coalition on pure ideological basis with both the SPD and the KPD. It still shot them in the foot, many of them were jews, many were executives that were seen as unfit for control, and they lost all political power outside of a few fringes by the death of Hindenberg.
Anybody who labels themself as any form of socialist or communist who would not be willing to form this coalition doesn't understand the basic concepts of the belief they champion, an unarguable foundation of which is the inter-reliance of humanity for itself in all material circumstances. This idea proceeds historical materialism.
Once fascism gains enough power, politically and culturally, there becomes a tipping point wherein the administration cannot be dealt with electorally and has more manpower than any opposition and so can win in any military fight. This is why the USSR had little choice but to form the non-aggression pact for long enough that they could prepare to participate in the war.
Fascism is an immediate threat to both liberalism and socialism, as well as the entire species. Liberalism is a very slow threat, and can be dealt with later. Fascists need to be removed as quickly as possible and by nearly any means possible, while liberals have less urgency and require less urgency to confront.
If you were in a communist party or a socdem or a liberal party with a leader that is unwilling to form a coalition to confront fascist, no matter what they believe that person needs to be treated as a fascist sympathizer and by extension no different in any meaningful capacity to the fascists themselves. The thing is, liberals are often far more willing to engage with and entertain fascists, and so again any liberal standing in the way must be treated the same.
Like another user pointed out, there have been many times where these ideological differences were put aside in order to remove a previous or new order, a huge example was the founding of the USSR. The problem is, that after this coalition ends because the need for mutual aid ended, it lead to one of the bloodiest civil wars in history, yet it still lead to one that resulted in the industrialization of the USSR such that it was able to compete against the nazis, even at an unfathomable human cost. I can't make many promises about history, but I can almost promise you that Russia wouldve been in the same place that China was in 1939 if there was not a different order, and so wouldve lost the eastern front, and the nazis wouldve indisputably won the war as they wouldve had significant manpower to out-maneuver on the western front.
These coalitions can be incredibly costly in the end, but will almost always result in a better outcome than if that previous order survived.
The only reason that the nazis lost ww2 was because the final possible alliance in a long, long list of rejected ones between socialists and liberals was made, and it was made so late that it claimed 53 million lives, 3% of the worlds population, in 6 years. You NEVER want to get to the point where this is the only choice, but that will happen every single time that the coalition is not formed sooner.
I agree completely, this is the exact position that I hold. I do not like Stalinists, but I would want a coalition of anyone willing to oppose the fascists. The tragedy of Weimar was unwillingness to cooperate, the SPD and KPD disagreed on much, but they were still socialists. If the Reichsbanner paramilitaries of SPD were as militant as the Rotfront, and worked together, perhaps the situation would be different.
Hell, I voted CENTRIST in the last election. Harris doesn't share too much in common with me but I voted for her because at that time I really needed allies. I wish others had put aside their moral high horse but here we are.
That said, I'd LOVE to see a truly socialist leaning candidate, along with a congress to support take hold.
Maybe . . . .maybe in my lifetime?
I am in a similar situation. I think community organizing is commendable, but if people do not vote against the fascists because it would be "participating in bourgeois democracy", they will find themselves in the same place the KPD did in Weimar Germany.
The issue is that people concede to voting for centrists to stave off the fascists, and then just...stop. This is why governments all over the world are run by neoliberals, even though people dislike them and would rather see more leftist / socialist policies brought into place.
The Democratic Party has been wholly consumed by corporate and capitalist interests and no longer serves the working class. The only way to change that is to take over the party from within. That means aggressive organizing, fundraising, advocacy, and running socialist candidates for office in primary challenges against corporate Democrats at all levels of power. It's an enormous undertaking, and requires everyone to play their part.
You shouldn’t cooperate with them. Manipulate.