/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Fascism is a meaningless nonsense term that's been appropriated by so many opportunists for different means that it's been evacuated of all meaning. Trotsky had the clearest definition, though still vague, that unites the commonalities among the various regimes that called themselves fascist in his time: fascism is simply the violence and repression that comes after a revolution against capitalism is defeated.

>>464686
You defined fascism as counter revolutionary violence and repression.
I guess that works well enough for most cases.

But there are a few nit picks, it would mean that fascism can't happen unless it's a reaction to a socialist revolution. That might not work in certain edge cases. And it kinda lacks a description of the class character.

>>464687
Yeah, "fascism" is an ill-defined concept. Without a proper defintiion, there isn't much use for it.

I think it's important to note how fascism typically follows the failures of and differences within the entire socialist movement, and the disenchantment of its members.
We know how the first fascists emerged out of anarchist, syndicalist and Marxist thought, and its fusion with nationalism. We know how Mussolini was once a well-read Marxist who was expelled for his unorthodox positions, especially regarding WW1. We know how Hitler supported the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic and later became a student of Mussolini.
Fascism is socialism in decline.

>>464720
>We know how Mussolini was once a well-read Marxist
Do we really? I'd like to see some evidence for that. Most of the "former" Marxists I've encountered don't seem to have known shit about Marx.

>>464721
or, just perhaps, they know more while you suffer from dunning Kruger syndrome?

>>464720
Tldr: fascism is leftism matured. Definitely the most based thing ever posted on leftychan

>>464711
>Yeah, "fascism" is an ill-defined concept. Without a proper defintiion, there isn't much use for it.
So we go back to the definition of Georgi Dimitrov, that's properly defined at least

>>464722
Perhaps the entire world is a simulation for someone else and your individuality is just an emergent function of some larger neural net. Many things are possible.

>>464720
Fascism usually grows out of Liberalism, or what ever imperial Japan was, (some kind of feudalism that used industrial technology exclusively for war production)

Fascism has never grown out of Socialism. Mussolini might have been pretending to be socialist for political convenience, but if you read what corporatism/itallian-fascism is that's very much a project of continuing the power of the old capitalist ruling class. It has nothing to do with socialism which seeks to make the proletariat the ruling class.

I also don't understand why you are trying to bring Hitler in the proximity of socialism ? That's just madness considering how he declared total war against the Soviet Union which was THE major socialist power of that time.

Also the economic concept of privatization was invented under Hitlers reign, at least economically the Neo-liberals are the heirs of fascism, even more so now because rising inflation was also a problem of fascist economics. (to be fair it was a lot worse under fascism).

If you consider fully developed socialist economics, where money has been replaced by labor-vouchers and prices are computed based on labor-time , socialism might even be slightly deflationary. Because a labor-hour token, would have slightly increasing purchasing power over time. When productivity rises in the economy because better technology is implemented, that means that one hour of labor will produce more and of course one labor-voucher will buy more.

>Fascism is socialism in decline.
Fascism is clearly capitalism in decay.

>>464725
No the simulation hypothesis is wrong, it's just a re-framing of old idealism like the Brain in a vat thought experiment. Which is just solipsism.

If the universe is a computer simulation, that means there still has to be a computer that exists in a physical reality, somewhere. And there is no reason to add this extra layer on top of our understanding of reality, unless we find concrete evidence. For example if you can gain root access to the reality simulation and start making changes that are impossible, like change a desert region to a lush temperature climate zone in an instant, because you found the map-generator for earth or something like that.

Just go by occam's razor, and use the simplest possible explanation:
there is a physical reality and we are in it.
Not there is a physical reality and on top of that are 20 layers of simulated realities, that's just superfluous complexity.

>>464723
How you reach that conclusion is beyond me. The way that fascists "matured" socialist thinkers was by selectively reading their works and fusing it with nationalism. It would be like saying that Posadism is a matured form of Marxism.
>>464726
>Fascism usually grows out of Liberalism
>Fascism has never grown out of Socialism
This is empirically false. It is very clear that the history of fascism is related to socialist and other radical leftist movements. Behind every fascism there is a failed revolution.
>or what ever imperial Japan was
Not fascist, which only proves my point.
>Mussolini might have been pretending to be socialist for political convenience
Pure conjecture.
>but if you read what corporatism/itallian-fascism is that's very much a project of continuing the power of the old capitalist ruling class
I never denied this.
>It has nothing to do with socialism which seeks to make the proletariat the ruling class.
Never said it was socialism, I thought my point was very clear. Fascism emerged in reaction to developments in the socialist movement.
>I also don't understand why you are trying to bring Hitler in the proximity of socialism
Because he was in the proximity of socialism, facts are facts. I never said Hitler was a socialist, or that national socialism is socialism. I only said that Hitler worked alongside socialists and was influenced by Mussolini, an ex-socialist.
Once again, fascism is socialism in decline. More specifically, fascism is what happens when the socialist movement encounters failure and regression.

>>464721
Evidence in first picture. It's from the book Young Mussolini and the Intellectual Origins of Fascism.
Second is a photo of Hitler at the funeral procession for Kurt Eisner, leader of the People's State of Bavaria who died prior to the establishment of the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
Again, none of this implies that Mussolini and Hitler were always socialists, or that fascism is a form of socialism.

>>464729
I think you are wrong to label Mussolini a socialist, his ideological theories and actions are not compatible with that, and what he claimed to be at one point is less relevant than his actions and theories. He's a historical figure he's got to be judged by the accumulative effects of his life. It was somewhat common that Fascists pretended to be socialists, like Hitler that even tried to paint his party as socialist.

>Fascism emerged in reaction to developments in the socialist movement.
Yes that is true but fascism grew out of capitalism and liberalism.

>Hitler was in the proximity of socialism
No i don't see how you can make that assertion, in terms of ideology and actions it would be difficult to get further away from socialism.

>More specifically, fascism is what happens when the socialist movement encounters failure and regression.
We can agree on that
but not:
>fascism is socialism in decline.

Fascism generally happens in declining capitalist countries. So i think it should say
Fascism is capitalism in decay.

Can you explain why you don't consider Imperial Japan to be fascist ? I thought that was uncontroversial.
It's also the only historical example where Georgi Dimitrov description of fascism as the manifestation of imperial finance power doesn't perfectly fit.

>>464732
Firstly, there is no evidence that Lenin ever said "fascism is capitalism in decay". The quote of often misattributed to him.
>I think you are wrong to label Mussolini a socialist
He was in the Italian Socialist Party and was well acquainted with socialist theory. He was clearly a socialist. If you disagree so vehemently then you should be able evidence to the contrary.
>No i don't see how you can make that assertion
See >>464731
>in terms of ideology and actions it would be difficult to get further away from socialism
Obviously. I don't think you understand the point I'm making.
<More specifically, fascism is what happens when the socialist movement encounters failure and regression.
>We can agree on that
Failure and regression is evidence of a movement in decay. Therefore, fascism is socialism in decay.
>Fascism generally happens in declining capitalist countries. So i think it should say Fascism is capitalism in decay.
Socialism also appeared in declining capitalist countries, as we saw in the revolutions of 1917-1923. What this shows is that capitalism in decline creates a power vacuum, not that it necessarily leads to fascism.
>Can you explain why you don't consider Imperial Japan to be fascist?
I think they are closely related but I don't think they're the same. It really depends on what definition of fascism you use. For myself, I see no clear link between the intellectual traditions of fascism and that of Showa nationalism.

>>464733
>Firstly, there is no evidence that Lenin ever said "fascism is capitalism in decay". The quote of often misattributed to him.
Then who did ?
>He was in the Italian Socialist Party
Yeah but that does not say much, it's not like fascists trying to infiltrate socialist parties is a particularly new phenomenon. They're ruthlessly opportunistic.
>and was well acquainted with socialist theory
that doesn't say much at all, i learned neo-liberal theory, in order to refute it and to know what the opponents think.

>Obviously. I don't think you understand the point I'm making.
Maybe not.
I'm mostly wondering about your intentions. It hasn't been lost on me that you avoid putting capitalism in the same sentence as fascism. It even appears as if you avoid associating Hitler and Mussolini with capitalism.

I would associate "socialism in decay" with a Socialist country whose economy is faltering. So i strongly disagree with your slogan. I also want to put the words "capitalism" and "fascism" in the same sentence.

I do understand your point that a successful socialist revolution is the means to defeat fascism.
Where i disagree though is that fascism can only be a reaction to socialism. I think that it is very plausible that capitalism would turn into fascism entirely on it's own while it's trying to deal with it's internal contradictions.

>Socialism also appeared in declining capitalist countries, as we saw in the revolutions
Not so sure about that, Tsarist Russia still was to a significant extend feudal, only a small part of it's economy was capitalist. If the Bolshevik revolution hadn't happened it would have had a bourgeois revolution that expanded the capitalist mode of production. China had an agrarian economy, hardly anything was capitalist, when the Maoists began making revolution.
So clearly Socialism also appeared in circumstances other than decaying capitalism.

>I think they are closely related but I don't think they're the same. It really depends on what definition of fascism you use. For myself, I see no clear link between the intellectual traditions of fascism and that of Showa nationalism.
Imperial Japan is a strange edge-case. They had really backwards feudal social relations with an Emperor sitting on a thrown performing anachronistic sword rituals, but they also could build really advanced industrial technology battle ships.

>>464733
Lol. You seem to think you are debating intellectually honest and well informed people. Won't find much of that here, just a bunch of fags larping as Bolsheviks.

>>464735
Passive aggressive and zero arguments.

>>464724
I don't much dig that one either. The power of finance capital is just finance capital.
>>464726
>>464727
>>464729
>>464731
>>464732
>>464733
>>464734
>fascism is clearly this
>fascism mostly does that
>fascism is matured/decayed (your ideology)
Still no coherant definition to be found. Here, how about this: "fascism is a meaningless term for people to argue pointlessly over."

Fuck this bullshit captcha up the ass.

>>464737
>I don't much dig that one either. The power of finance capital is just finance capital.
In Marxist theory finance capital is the merger of industrial capital and money capital.
Dimitrov's theory specifies IMPERIAL finance capital specifically. So not all finance capital is causing fascism, just the parts involved in imperial stuff. At least that's how it's usually interpreted.
In the historic context that definition is spot on.

>Here, how about this: "fascism is a meaningless term for people to argue pointlessly over."
Ok i get your frustration, about verbose threads that lead to no conclusion.
However just abandoning the quest to understand the phenomenon can't be the solution.
You have to understand how it works in order to have a chance at defeating it.

Maybe it would help if you would articulate where you find fault with Dimitrov's theory or the other theory that was proposed earlier in the thread.

>>464738
>Ok i get your frustration, about verbose threads that lead to no conclusion.
No, it's that you two, as well as every single other person who argues about the definition of "fascism," just go round and round in a great big circle and never come up with any coherant definition of the term. It is absolutely ridiculous.
>However just abandoning the quest to understand the phenomenon can't be the solution.
It's not a phenomenon. Some asshole in the 1930s called the autocratic militarism that he was doing "fascism," and then everyone who hated him expanded the term "fascism" to include his German and Japanese allies who were doing their own brands of bloody militarism. Afterward, edgy teenagers and prison gay gangsters started calling themselves "fascist," and the easily offended started building up the nobodies as "enemies of freedom" and "the footsoldiers of the next wave of reaction."
>You have to understand how it works in order to have a chance at defeating it.
It doesn't need to be defeated. It isn't even fucking real. The idiots who call themselves "fascists" are just playing with an aesthetic. They don't have any more of a coherant definition than you do. Hell, it probably wasn't even anything coherant when Mussolini coined the idea.
>Maybe it would help if you would articulate where you find fault with Dimitrov's theory or the other theory that was proposed earlier in the thread.
No, I am not getting drawn into that bullshit. Finance capital is its own power. It doesn't matter how "imperial" it is.

>>464734
>Then who did
Don't know, don't care.
>it's not like fascists trying to infiltrate socialist parties is a particularly new phenomenon
I am willing to concede to this point with regard to Mussolini if you have proof of this phenomenon occurring in the early 20th century. Keep in mind, you must also find some way to separate fascist infiltrators from genuine socialists who later converted to fascism. If you can't do both, then all you have is an educated guess at best.
>i learned neo-liberal theory, in order to refute it and to know what the opponents think
But you didn't learn neo-liberal theory to then join a neo-liberal movement. Mussolini learned socialist theory and joined a socialist party.
>I'm mostly wondering about your intentions
My intention is to be a critic of the socialist movement, just as Marx very often did.
>It hasn't been lost on me that you avoid putting capitalism in the same sentence as fascism
>It even appears as if you avoid associating Hitler and Mussolini with capitalism
Okay then: fascism is a form of capitalism, and both Mussolini and Hitler were pro-capitalist.
>I would associate "socialism in decay" with a Socialist country whose economy is faltering.
Now I understand why you aren't getting my point. The term socialism does refer to a society based on a specific mode of production, but it also refers to the movement whose goal is to establish said mode of production. When I say "fascism is socialism in decay", I am referring to the movement.
>Where i disagree though is that fascism can only be a reaction to socialism. I think that it is very plausible that capitalism would turn into fascism entirely on it's own while it's trying to deal with it's internal contradictions.
This is part of my point. Indeed, when socialist movements are powerless or cannot successfully seize power, they give ground to fascism.
>Tsarist Russia still was to a significant extend feudal
>China had an agrarian economy
The example I gave was the revolutions of 1917-1923, which was a revolutionary wave that spread throughout much of Europe. In either case, I was not being specific to capitalism. My point there is that any society in decline tends to create a power vacuum.
>>464737
Fascism is indeed a vague and heavily abused term, but the same can be said about socialism. Also, I don't think it's pointless to argue over the definition. Do you really think it benefits anyone to allow miseducated leftists to call everyone they dislike fascist?

>>464738
>In Marxist theory finance capital is the merger of industrial capital and money capital.
lol no it isn't. Finance capital predates industrial capital by thousands of years. Shut the fuck up and actually read Marx.

>>464749
>Fascism is indeed a vague and heavily abused term, but the same can be said about socialism.
The difference there is that different factions come up with different but individually coherant definitions of "socialism." People are able to draw lines based on those definitions that say this is "socialism" and that is not.

Fascism, on the other hand, is functionally a non-concept. The only guy who, arguably, ever had a definition of "fascism" was Mussolini. The so-called definitions mentioned here are just vagueries that could simultaneously apply to anything and nothing at the same time. Nobody can say this is "fascism" and that is not according to any inherent quality of a thing being so labled.

Throw the term out completely, I say. It is utterly worthless as anything other than an empty invective or an aesthetic for LARPers to play with. All its use does is to disguise what things to which the term gets applied actually are.

>>464749
>I am willing to concede to this point with regard to Mussolini if you have proof of this phenomenon occurring in the early 20th century.
Socialist parties in the 20th century felt it necessary to have a lot of political purges. So that would indicate they thought this phenomenon was occurring.

>Keep in mind, you must also find some way to separate fascist infiltrators from genuine socialists who later converted to fascism. If you can't do both, then all you have is an educated guess at best.
There isn't a reliable way to detect infiltrators, unless you have an idea how to remove the guesswork. Tho i don't think that there isn't a significant socialism to fascism pipeline. Considering how much fascists tried to murder socialists, it stands to reason they were unsuccessful at ideological conversion. There is a more pronounced liberal to fascism pipeline tho.

>My intention is to be a critic of the socialist movement, just as Marx very often did.
Yeah that's probably a necessary role.

>Indeed, when socialist movements are powerless or cannot successfully seize power, they give ground to fascism.
So Fascism is socialist impotence.
That is a very ruthless outlook but valid. The Soviet socialists were certainly very potent and fascism was swept away as a result.

There this is the open question about how you would describe the class character of fascism.

>>464685
fascism is class collaborationism in the defense of capitalism and the bourgeoisie. it's highly populist so it involves masses of mobilized proles, but all the proles involved are dupes and cucks.

>>464789
Sneaky China critic is sneaky.

>>464776
>purges
I assure you that purges were not enacted solely due to the fear of fascist infiltrators, and even if they were, there's no telling whether it was based on excessive paranoia rather than evidence.
>There isn't a reliable way to detect infiltrators
Then I rest my case. I trust what the evidence says, and the evidence says that the young Mussolini was a genuine socialist, albeit an unorthodox one. There's simply no proof that he was a fascist infiltrator.
>Tho i don't think that there isn't a significant socialism to fascism pipeline.
Just because it isn't significant doesn't mean it can't happen.
>Considering how much fascists tried to murder socialists
This was not always the case before Hitler's rise to power.
>There is a more pronounced liberal to fascism pipeline
I agree, but the intellectual lineage of fascism did not find its origin in liberal thought.
>So Fascism is socialist impotence.
Exactly, which is why I keep saying that fascism is socialism in decay/decline.
>There this is the open question about how you would describe the class character of fascism.
The base for fascism as well as most other national-conservative movements is overwhelmingly rural and suburban petite bourgeoisie. In contrast, the base for socialism (more realistically social democracy, or "progessivism" in America) is more diverse but typically urban petite bourgeoisie and segments of labour aristocracy. In both cases, the base explains their anti-capitalist rhetoric since it targets their bourgeois competitors.
Fascists and socialists compete to amass support from the proletariat. Normally, socialists outperform fascists amongs proles, but this isn't always the case. When socialists fail to "deliver the goods" or fall into disarray, disaffected proles - especially lumpenized proles - tend to switch allegiances to fascists instead, or more generally with the right.

>>464789
So…. Everything I don't like is fascism. Back to square 1

>>464685
Its a union of capital and State. The State functions to guide and control capital, while enriching those in charge of said corporations as a means of maintaining loyalty.
Wealth accumulation is allowed and encouraged. While at the same time State power works to assert and maintain itself over capital despite that.
Its built around an idealistic view of society. Where Marxist beliefs are rejected and Liberal ideals are similarly hated. Each State is in competition with the rest. It can be progressive when it views extant social control as hostile to the fitness of society as a whole. It can be reactionary when it views change as decreasing fitness and competitiveness.

Regardless of if you agree with me or not, at least accept that Umberto Eco's definition is terrible.

>>464797
So…. Actually Existing Socialism…?

>>464799
No.
Cuba doesn't resemble that at all.
Neither does China. The CCP has allowed the development of its internal market economy for the last 50 odd years. But it didn't unionized with the companies that sprouted up. They stayed separate.
The CCP demanded obedience, but didn't bring the businessmen into governance in turn.
Same goes for Vietnam.

That is what separates China from actual fascism. That it didn't form a true alliance with the corporations inside itself.
This is where today's Corporate-Government War in China came from. That refusal to give the corporations a say.

>>464797
>Its a union of capital and State.
That's every state in capitalist society.

>>464806
Shhhhhh. This guy was on a roll of spinning his word salad

>>464800
>The CCP has allowed the development of its internal market economy for the last 50 odd years. But it didn't unionized with the companies that sprouted up. They stayed separate.
Yeah, that's exactly what nazis say that their state did. In both cases, it's bullshit.

>>464808
China's too based for the western left(tm) to cope with. Maybe if you put more energy into calling everything fashism, the revolution will come though

>>464806
Its the end goal, but not the actual status.
Capital and State are separate from each other in most capitalist states, most of the time.
And sometimes they can even be on-average hostile to one another.

Germany today is a very capitalist state. How is there a union between State and capital?
France today is a very capitalist state. How is there a union between State and capital?

>>464794
>I assure you that purges were not enacted solely due to the fear of fascist infiltrators, and even if they were, there's no telling whether it was based on excessive paranoia rather than evidence.
Yes there is a way of telling at least a little, there were many socialist factions in the 20th century. Not all of them purged. So it might be possible to make a comparison to see whether the ones that did purges fared better against fascism than those that didn't. It's not accurate by any means but it could give hints about the scale of fascist infiltration.

>I trust what the evidence says, and the evidence says that the young Mussolini was a genuine socialist, albeit an unorthodox one. There's simply no proof that he was a fascist infiltrator.
Yeah but Mussolini was at one point THE "CEO of fascism" not just one random fascist. It doesn't strike me as very likely that capital would have allowed him to rise through the ranks if he was a genuine socialist at some point.
>This was not always the case before Hitler's rise to power.
Socialist organizing was very strong, they had disciplined and well armed carders that would have annihilated the early fascist movement if they had tried to murder socialists.

>the intellectual lineage of fascism did not find its origin in liberal thought.
They don't have intellectual lineage.
Hitler copied a bunch of race-"theory" concepts from race-"theorists" in America who wanted to go back to a slave-economy and mixed it with European aristocratic "how-to bread and maintain a lineage for the feudal age". He also borrowed from a bunch of others like Niche, Tibetan feudal crap and paganism. Some Nazis thought that ice was a magic substance that had cosmic importance , while others thought that earth might be a hollow sphere and all of civilization was on the inside, those pointed a telescope up in the sky hoping they could spy on war-preparation in the UK and France. It's basically just pure opportunism congealed into a pseudo intellectual mish-mash of nonsense. It's like that painting style they used for their propaganda posters where a bunch of stuff just bleeds into each other. I wouldn't be surprised if Socialist Realism art wasn't just Stalin going for "what's the opposite of that ?". (Don't take this the wrong way i'm not attempting to politicize art-styles, you could make socialist propaganda in the art-style that was used in Mussolini-art. Aesthetic choices can be untethered from politics.)

Fascism is extremely idealist, and that can't have originated from socialism which is materialist.

I sometimes can see glimmers of fascism in liberal twitter thoughts, like those center right liberals that want to make it socially acceptable to murder houseless people. Or the center-left liberals who want to bring back race-segregation to the US in the name of social progress. There was a famous liberal centrist comedian who made a sketch about a miner-strike and suggested that if tear-gas is insufficient to bully the workers to give up striking for concessions, they should be shot with live ammo. The armed corporate goons that were tasked with attacking labor strikes, is where the shock-troops for installing a fascistic open dictatorship of the bourgeoisie have tended to start from.

>I keep saying that fascism is socialism in decay/decline.
I don't like instrumentalist slogans they are easily misunderstood.
Can you rephrase it into something like
<Fascism results from insufficient Socialist hard-power.
except in a catchier sloganeering tone
That would be less ambiguous and a nod to the Soviet Union's historic contribution towards defeating 20th century Fascism.

>The base for fascism/national-conservative movements is rural and suburban petite bourgeoisie.
>The base for socialism (more realistically social democracy, or "progessivism" in America) is more diverse but typically urban petite bourgeoisie and segments of labour aristocracy

Neither capitalism nor fascism really cares about cultural values as long as it's compatible with the bourgeois ruling class lording over politics and the economy. You can neither rule out the possibility for woke fascism nor socially conservative fascism. I'm not claiming that capitalism is truly culturally neutral, but it is very close to it. I don't want to foreclose on the possibility of a proletarian culture that can't be recuperated by capitalism, but i don't know of any practical examples.

I know that Chris Hedges for example thinks that American fascism would style it self after the Christian Right. And that is a very real possibility. But it is very foolish to think fascism can't pretend to be liberal socially progressive and wave a rainbow flag.

I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't say the base for socialism is working class people, or the masses ?
Why do you think it's the urban petit bourgoisie or the labour aristocracy ?
I get that many historic socialist leaders and thinkers were not working class, but people that betrayed their own class interests to fight for the working class, but you have to admit they were the exception to the rule.
Standard Marxist theory says that the base for social democracy is labor-unions and the anti-war-movement (which manifests as national liberation movement in the imperialized countries).

>In both cases, the base explains their anti-capitalist rhetoric since it targets their bourgeois competitors.
I agree that some sections of the petite bourgeoisie can be allies to the proletariat because they are both opposed to the big bourgeoisie. Sections of the labor aristocracy can also be ally to the proletariat because the labor aristocracy is constantly threatened of getting fully proletarianized by the bourgeoisie. But there are labor aristocrats and petit bourgeoisie positions in imperial capitalism that are never going to be allies for the workers. Some CIA dude organizing the drug traffic in latin America would technically be petit bourgeois too but they're not in conflict with the big bourgeoisie. The instructor in a Zionist crowd-control / torture-technique school would technically count as labor aristocrat, but they are not in conflict with the bourgeoisie either. Some of the fake NGOs that pretend to be human rights advocacy groups, but in reality are doing political destabilization in countries of the periphery, that's another such example. There is a sizeable blob of reaction within the petite bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy.

>Fascists and socialists compete to amass support from the proletariat.
Yes.
>Normally, socialists outperform fascists amongs proles,
Yes
>but this isn't always the case.
I doubt this, fascists have won over socialists when they got state-power and used state violence to crush the revolution, they never genuinely won a battle for democracy. Hitler was just appointed.
>When socialists fail to "deliver the goods" or fall into disarray
Countries where socialists gain state-power but fail to organize society and the economy tend to be taken over by rival capitalist powers from the outside, not some leftover local capitalists.
>disaffected proles - especially lumpenized proles - tend to switch allegiances to fascists instead, or more generally with the right.
I'm unsure if this can count as a theoretical point, this could also function as a liberal dog-whistle to attack poor people. You have to re-frame this to exclude the potential for that. Workers who are pushed into the reserve army of labor or outside of formal society can't really be the villains. Powerless poor people are not villains. Villains are rich and powerful. If creating precarious economic circumstances funnels workers toward fascism, then the blame goes towards all those people that resist full employment policies.
Workers can never have responsibility for what happens in capitalism. Responsibility goes towards people who control the allocation of surplus in society.

In feudalism the feudal-lords are guilty until proven innocent.
In capitalism the bourgeoisie is guilty until proven innocent.
And of course the workers will bare that very same burden of responsibility for what happens in the socialist mode of production, but not a moment before.

You kinda ignored the role of the big bourgeoisie in fascism.
Theorists like Dimitrov thought that they were the driving cause of fascism, you can't really think that he was entirely wrong about that. 20th century fascism was funded by the biggest capitalists. I get that they just saw the soviet Union as resource wealth they could not extract and labor-power they could not exploit, but the "it's just business" excuse is not valid. If you fund Hitler, you are Hitler. You might say capitalists vote with their wallet.

>>464808
Given that leaders of the Nazi movement were given private industrial operations to manage separate from their job as a governmental official, clearly there's a difference.
And that the State very often came in and created deals and developments between competing private companies for the ends of the greater whole, shows a difference. When the Nazi party wanted a new machine gun for their military, they forced a bunch of different companies together to pool their patents and knowledge and work to spit out unified designs, leaving you at the end with the MG34. After which the State worked out large scale payment plans, so that everyone with a patent involved in the design got paid out.

Both are significantly different than the arrangement found in China today or in the past.

>>464814
holy shit bro
do you expect anyone to read all that shit
I'm on a 4K TV and that shit still takes up a whole screen what the fuck

>>464818
>i have a fancy screen and i can't read.
You can download the ghost of Stephen Hawking and he'll read it to you, like an audio-book-player that is trapped in a steel-drum.

>>464821
Brevity is the soul of wit.

>>464793
>a plain definition of fascism makes you offended on china's behalf
big tell
>>464796
bot post