Bansh the fancs
I am a partisan type of anti fascist, titoist anti fascist and I I support Russia’s Anti Fascism if they are serious about stamping out Fascism. I already support Stalinist type of Anti Fascism
This includes me , when I enter this temporary recurring state to also sanitize Mises ideology within the LP by filtering the Mises caucus views through the leftist/progressive/liberalish views of these leftists/progressives/liberals to make said Mises views progressive and or leftist (like as Left wing as Contrapoints or at worst as liberal as Josh Gottheimer) so I can support it each time I oscillate to this state of mind
AND
Me supporting Post colonial Anarchism left wing populism.
This article by the Left Libertarian think tank C4ss (Some Social Challenges That Won’t Magically Go Away With a Biden Presidency) actually shows who really makes up the bulk of the MAGA movement (hint it is not who you expect) so also keep that in mind when dealing with MAGA and deradicalizing MAGA
All right-wing, authoritarian, corporate capitalists are "fascists"for short
But Trump supporters are technically ‘Fascists’, as are all Republicans and the majority of Democrats along with everyone else on Earth who is against Socialism
The only technical definition of Fascism is Militant Anti Socialism. Anyone on Earth who is opposed to Socialism even though they live in a capitalist society ,is technically a fascist.
The entire political purpose of Fascism is to suppress Socialism. All Fascist movements were founded on Anti Socialism. All Fascist movements in history actively fought Socialism.
Socialism is the progressive response to the natural and inevitable collapse of capitalism. On the other hand, Fascism is the reactionary response to that collapse.Anyone who opposes socialism in the 21st century is technically a Fascist.
Anti fascism has the advantage that it is not defined positively, which means that you don't have to do the work of articulating a political program, or what that might appear like in the current period.
Anti fascism is defined negatively and it's defined against things that are self-evidently bad. And at the same time, those things which are bad are also understood in Liberal 2.0 terms; the fascists are hostile to diversity, they are repressive of minorities, they are racist and exclusionary -- all of which are obviously true, but which also misconstrue the historical purpose of fascism in the 20th century, which was an overriding hostility to the worker's movement. I am against any forces which are hostile to the worker's movement
This Liberal 2.0 framing of fascism helps to explain its appeal: its absence of content, or of content that is given by a type of easy Liberalism 2.0 which can be taken in from the contemporary status quo and without requiring any person to make any real effort to put forward a political vision of the future.
Though we cannot understate that Fascism is still an extreme right wing form of Capitalist rule. Fascist ideologies are still present in various forms in most capitalist in the majority of Capitalist countries and in the former colonies that are ruled by puppet regimes.
In the US, Fascism is closely linked to white supremacy and it shows itself in a lot of institutions and cultural tendencies. Fascism is the ruling class’s last resort, which it uses to try to smash all working-class organizations. (workers.org/fascism/)
Communists have fought and continue to fight against Fascism
Marxist/Marxian thought is materialist and dialectical. Jungianism and Campbellian mythologies appeal to some kind of "intrinsic" fortified structure of human thought (they commonly refer to these as "archetypes"). It's quasi-religious due to it not being a material thing.
The archetype only can be represented as a type of idea and is thus idealist. It's not by chance that Jordan Peterson tries and tries to reinsert religion as this type of structuring thought process (JP’s debate with Matt Dillahunty is one example).
That's fully opposite of how us Marxists/Marxians see our world; we don't subscribe to the notion of human nature or whatever since we think that's part of religious ideology.
Humans are social beings, by their very nature, and so there is no human outside of our society. Feral children are qualifiedly different from socialized people; our processes of thought are not outside of society and ordained by some invisible nature or by Christians or Qanon , but instead structured by our the relationship we have to society (typically a working relationship).
Since society is made up of people but society structures people, we take a viewpoint of the development that we refer to as the "dialectic".
Which is a viewpoint that individuals and society are inseparable, and that their evolving relationship composes the reality that we really experience. An implicit conclusion we reach is that nothing lasts forever, there is no actual separation between man and nature, we should not be our own Gods, and that social forms are dependent and evolutionary.
Capitalism paints itself as a logical, necessary state of being but a dialectical view of historical development shows Capitalism to be an expression of the relations between people and productive methods that is constantly becoming more and more different.
I like other Marxists/Marxians refer to obscurantism, mythology, and metaphysics as being fascist-adjacent since these looks to obscure the reality of dialectical materialism; where Marxists like me see a class relation, mysticists like Jordan Peterson try to assert some "natural hierarchy".
Fascism in the eyes of us Marxists/Marxians, is the effort of the ruling class to assert an ideal, whether it is natural hierarchy, racial hierarchy, etc in order to subvert the class struggle by setting up a fake basis for collaboration between classes (maintaining racial, national, or "natural" hierarchies).
I counter typical reactionary rhetoric in the following way
Reactionary rhetoric: Natural, non-tyrannical hierarchies have existed for hundreds of millions of years.
My response: It is a age old fallacy to project the concept of a societal hierarchy on to non-societal organisms .It was even seen as old back in the 1920s! Bukharin sums this type of argumentation up and why the reason that it is fallacious in Historical Materialism.
To guard the "sacred traditions" is an imperative that the bourgeoisie finds necessary. This is the reason, in particular, that phenomena that owe their origin to a certain historical stage are eternal, to have been handed down by their conception of God, and thus are insurmountable. We shall list three examples.
I. The State. We know now that the state is a class organization, that there is no way to be a state without classes, that a classless state is as likely as a round square, that the state couldn’t emerge until a precise stage in human evolution was reached.
However hear the bourgeois historians, even the greatest of them! Eduard Meyer states: "How far the formation of organic groups can proceed in the case of animals, I often had occasion to observe, thirty years ago, in Constantinople, in the case of the street dogs; they were organized in sharply distinct quarters, into which they would admit no outside dogs, and every evening all the dogs of each quarter gather in an empty lot for a meeting of about half an hour, in which they bark loudly. We may therefore actually speak of dog states of definite outline in space." (Eduard Meyer: Geschichte des Altertums, vol. i, first half, 3d ed., p.7,)
It will thus come as no shock to us to see Eduard Meyer accepting the state as an essential property of human society. If even dogs have states like Eduard Meyer mentioned above (and so, clearly, laws, justice, etc.), how can humans get along without one?
II. Capital. On the topic the bourgeois economists put out the same idiosyncrasies. It is very known that capital has not existed forever, nor has capitalism either.
Capitalists and workers both are a phenomenon of historical growth, and in no way eternal. But the bourgeois scholars each time described capital as if it - and additionally the capitalist regime - had existed from the beginning of time.
And so, Torrens stated: "In the first stone which he (the savage) flings at the wild animal he pursues, in the stick that he seizes to strike down the fruit which hangs beyond his reach, we see the appropriation of one article for the purpose of aiding in the acquisition of another, and thus discover the origin of capital." (Marx Capital, vol. i, Chicago, 1915, p.205, footnote.) The monkey beating nuts out of a tree is therefore a capitalist (but without workers !).
Our current economists do not fare much better; as to prove the eternity of the power of the state, these impoverished wretches are obliged to supply their dogs with the capabilities of Lloyd George and their minions with those of the Rothschilds!
III. Imperialism. Bourgeois researchers and academics who give thought to this question commonly identify imperialism as the effort at augmenting within all forms of life. Obviously, imperialism is the financial capital policy, and financial capital itself did not emerge as a dominating economic form until the late 19th Century. The bourgeois researchers and academics didn’t care that much about that
In order to show that "things have ever been so", they promote the chicken which lifts up kernels into an imperialist, because it "annexes" the kernels! The dog state, the capitalist elephant and the imperialist chicken are an outstanding implication of the nature of modern day bourgeois science.
Lobster thought has really been BTFO for about nearly 100 years but Marxist works, believe it or not, are not in reality taught at higher learning institutions that are allegedly responsible for what some call postmodernist ‘neomarxism’. Those institutions are liberal 2.0 capitalist indoctrination centers
Are all hierarchies invalid?
We need to establish what a "hierarchy" actually is. As a method to organize society and getting things done, electing leaders isn’t the end of the world and has its uses. Equating that too much or overtly with stuff like oppression on the basis of class, gender, etc can be seen as an argumentative sleight of hand.
Mythology predates capitalism, so how is it fascist?
Obviously it predates it, that's the reason that it's mythology. A principle part of Marxism is that people like me study the relations of stuff primarily.
Zeus himself isn’t a fascist, since he doesn't exist. Believing in Zeus is not a fascist act, it only makes you foolish.
Mythology like mentioned above is different than using an ahistorical revival and misapplication of mythological beliefs to attempt to seek a sort of deeper truths about immutable human characteristics. Proclaiming we are alike as we were as Incas, Ancient Greeks, (or fill in the blank) etc and not able to get out of our inherent nature is at least somewhat fascist since the goal of fascism is to halt progress and preserve class rule.
Put in simple terms "immutable human characteristics" do not exist because such things as "human characteristics" in a vacuum do not exist; human characteristics involve a societal relationship and society changes.
Comments
Post a Comment