JoeySteel [comrade/them]

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Comment
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 2nd, 2020

help-circle


  • The Comintern abandoned the term in the interwar period essentially to beg for alliances with the Social-Democrats and calling them “Social-Fascists” was completely antagonistic to Soviet foreign policy during that period

    And what happened? Did the Social-Democrats force their governments to ally with the Soviets?

    No, we saw Chamberlain collude with Hitler to try and turn the Nazi army east, we saw Daladier do the exact same.

    France, under so-called “Socialist” Daladier, ratfucked Czechoslovakia by not activating the defence treaty that France and the Soviet Union had signed. (France and USSR signed a treaty with Czechoslovakia to come to her defence. However due to the anticommunism of the period the Czech President said that the Soviet Union could only defend Czechoslovakia if France came first to her defence. The reason he did this was because he suspected if only the Soviets came to his defence the capitalist pigs in France/UK would ally with the fascists and display this as “Communist aggression” and wage war on the Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union.) Instead France allowed Czechoslovakia to be carved up because they thought they were playing 5d chess to get Hitler to go east into the Soviet Union.

    Social democratic parties all over Europe collaborated with Hitler.

    Take Hungary, Hungarys Succdem party was never even banned under Hitlerite occupation so instep with fascism they were

    Let’s not beat about the bush - It was correct Soviet foreign policy once the Nazis had risen in 1933 to stop calling SuccDems Social-Fascists but doesn’t make it any less true

    This is all ironic of course on a page where we are discussing a Social-Democrat that supports fascism “over there”.

    “Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.”

    J. V. STALIN, from , “Concerning the International Situation,” 1924.