Socdem is bad because capitalism etc etc I understand that, but I saw some people in here saying that socdem is OBJECTIVELY the moderate branch of fascism, which I don’t really understand, because most socdems I know just want their basic welfare system, but are far from nationalism, advocating for genocide etc

I know it’s still bad but for example in spain I feel there’s a big difference between the francoist spain and the socdem wannabe spain, for the better

So please explain, and feel free to call out any brainworms that I might (probably) have shown in here

This could also just be a very funny line, like the “unlimited genocide on the first world” thing, idk

  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    9 days ago

    The general jist is that the communist method of identifying fascism is as a counter-movement to communism. Fascism arises wherever leftist revolutionary movements are reaching a point that will endanger the state, the capitalists fund fascism to acquire the tool of unlimited violence to use against the left to crush the threat, then they transition back to liberalism which is a more efficient extractor of value than fascism. This protects liberalism from being blamed for the violence and yet handily allows the bourgeoisie to use it. Fascism is the antibody of capitalism, the white blood cell that cleans capitalism of the communist infection to protect it. We understand fascism to function this way and to transition back into liberalism rather than becoming its own distinct thing because that’s precisely what happened everywhere that fascism won, fascism simply transitions back to liberalism later after achieving its task.

    With this method of identifying fascism in mind the social democracy in europe that arose post-ww2 was implemented to deradicalise leftist movements by providing compromise with the workeers without ending capitalism. This functionally carries out the same thing fascism does but through a different method - cleansing the population of radicals by changing the material conditions that cause those radicals to occur.

    In this way it is the “moderate” wing of fascism, performing the same goal fascism performs but through different means. Prior to the implementation of social democratic concessions communism was spreading across europe, social democracy stopped it.

    • durruticore [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 days ago

      I think I understand now. So socdems are more likely to side with capitalism, which can (?) result in fascism?

      Like both are bourgeois tools to deradicalize the proletariat, and one is more moderate than the other?

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        They share the goal of reinforcing capitalism by removing radicals from society with fascism and they follow the same path -

        1. Revolutionary Left threatens the bourgeoisie
        2. Social democracy is implemented
        3. Radicalism decreases under the better conditions
        4. Social democratic policies are taken away

        This follows the same pattern as fascism because they share the same goals. They’re different methods of addressing the same problem.

        Social democracy is not implemented without a reason, that reason is the threat of socialism. Fascism is not implemented without a reason, that reason is the threat of socialism.

        Different tools in the same toolbox.