On April 22nd, 1870, Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov “Lenin,” hero of the Russian Revolution, and architect of the world’s first Socialist state, was born. His contributions to the Marxist canon and to the revolutionary theory and practice of the proletariat throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of imperialism, the right of nations to self-determination, and revolutionary strategy have played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.
He also loved cats!
Some significant works:
Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism
The Right of Nations to Self-Determination
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don’t know where to start? Check out my “Read Theory, Darn it!” introductory reading list!
Fascism is best described as Capitalism’s mask. When the circumstances Capitalism finds itself in due to its own contradictions endanger the system, it dons the mask and does the dirty work necessary to perpetuate the system. From slaughtering minority groups to crushing worker movements, the inherently contradictory and irrational behavior found in fascism are there to ultimately save Private Capital.
Fascism isn’t a unique system, but Capitalism in decay.
Would you say that communists should not concentrate our energies attempting to prevent liberal democracy from turning into fascism? Like supporting social-democratic parties to keep fascists away. My understanding is that liberal “democracy” has some temporary advantages over fascism, but is not worth much energy.
Fascism is more acutely violent, but also temporary. Hitler initiated a war against much of the World, which he could not win. He was also incompetent. Out of insane hubris, he bypassed his generals and military strategists, because he was the chosen genius. Allegedly he didn’t have a real strategy to defeat the British Empire. He wanted to win the war by winning battle after battle. Thus he was defeated (largely by the Red Army), and “only” some 80 million lives were lost.
Liberal “democracy”, on the other hand, kills ten million people every few years, for centuries.
Fascism is brutal, crass, and visibly hateful. Liberal “democracy” is sophisticated, less acutely violent, and is falsely compassionate, but is also more competent at preserving itself and making victims.
Social Democracy is the twin of fascism. Both arise as mechanisms to defend against the decay of Capitalism, the former through bribery, the latter through brutality.
In my opinion, it depends on if the country is Imperialist, or Imperialized. If the Social Democratic movement in an Imperialized country is a national liberation movement, and thus moves against Imperialism, it should be supported. Socialism should still be supported over Social Democracy, but critical support for Capitalist countries fighting against Imperialism is important as Imperialism is the primary contradiction.
In the Imperial core, both should be firmly opposed. Social Democracy may be preferable over fascism, but both perpetuate Imperialism and thus both are to be opposed. Both will root out Communism if it poses a threat, with equal or near equal vigor.
https://lemmy.ml/post/501381
Damn right. Socialism or barbarism, either we break the cycle and move on to a better world, or Capital will happily kill us when it needs.
https://lemmy.ml/post/2485212
Thank you, I certainly needed a refresher on the Freikorps. I greatly admire the work you do, it’s a tremendous resource for us all.
Hi comrade! I am new here. Anyway, what you said is confirmed by History and by liberal theory itself.
Historically, look at Latin America (I am Brazilian). All over Latin America, when people elected leftist (not even communist) governments within the institutions of liberal democracy, the elite (with US support) staged a coup and installed a military dictatorship, effectively saying: no, the people are not allowed to choose socialism. They chose socialism, so we hereby abolish democracy.
And Jacobin covers the justification for this under liberal theory itself:
In short: liberal theory itself gives absolute priority to private property (over the means of production). If it conflicts with democracy, then democracy is tossed out the window. Fascism is liberalism’s plan B.
I always clarify “over the means of production” when attacking private property. There is this widespread confusion that communist thugs are going to invade your house and confiscate your bike. AFAIK, communists don’t do that.
Fun fact: in 1989 Brazilian elections, neoliberal Collor terrorized the people saying that Lula would confiscate everyone’s savings. With infamous support from Rede Globo (massive right-wing biased media corporation), Collor won, then quickly moved to confiscate everyone’s savings. Lula was elected in 2002, 2006 and 2022, and did nothing of the sort. Sadly, Lula is not communist, but social democrat.
1: https://jacobin.com/2022/08/nazi-germany-national-socialism-hypercaptialism-social-darwinism-liberalism
Welcome, comrade! And thanks for the Brazillian perspective, it’s funny to hear people “slander” Lula as a Communist, I wish that was true as well. As a spooky scary Communist myself, I hope I live to see the US Empire fall, even as a citizen of it.
Wouldn’t it be a derivative of oligarchy? Fascism doesn’t care about the free market, only the well being of those at the top. You could argue oligarchy is a derivative of capitalism, but I don’t think they’re synonymous.
Couple things, here:
“Oligarchy” is a nebulous, catch-all term for any system where only a few have any power. It could apply to many systems, but itself isn’t one. Nobody sets out to “do oligarchy,” nor is oligarchy itself a system in and of itself.
There’s no such thing as a “free market.” In Capitalism, the state is under the control of Capitalists. These Capitalists use the state as they wish, regulations in Capitalism are used primarily to empower the largest firms and shut out competition.
In analyzing those aspects, we need to analyze where the systems we think of as “fascism” arise. Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, etc were all the results of dire crisis, and the state aligned with Private Capital in extremely brutal manners to root out opposition and protect itself. The conditions for arising and the system in place were all Capitalist in nature.
You using private capital as synonymous with powerful people? Rich people to tend to be powerful, but they’re not the only ones.
And are you saying the treaty of versailles and it’s fallout were part of the conditions for fascism, and were capitalist in nature?
I’m not using it as synonymous with powerful people, fascism has always been tied to private capital. As I already said, oligarchy isn’t really any one thing, just like economy isn’t. Fascism specifically is entirely a product of Capitalist decay, or, rather, is Capitalism when in decay and needs to rescue itself.
The inter-Ally debts causing the allies to squeeze Germany ever-further via reparations in order to pay their debts back to the US was a part of the rise of fascism, but not the only one. There was also rising labor organizing, a need for forced labor via colonial expansion, and more. It’s more complex and nuanced than that.