this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
282 points (100.0% liked)

politics

21944 readers
1 users here now

Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.

Labour and union posts go to [email protected].

Take the dunks to /c/strugglesession or [email protected].

[email protected] is good for shitposting.

Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.

Off topic posts will be removed.

Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism... 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.

Even with the full quote you still misunderstand it. I'm not sure how you can look at that and not see hiw what i just told you is correct.

We can't say "if you sit down at a table with fascists you're a fascist" all day then pretend "moderate fascist, fascism's twin" means "not fascist."

They are "Twins" because they were "born" at the same time from the same material conditions. He's not using twin to mean "identical." They aren't identical, but they both exist to serve capital and defebd it from proletarian revolution. That's why social democracy is "objectively tge moderate wing if fascism." This is not saying "AOC us a fascist" its not even saying "AOC is a moderate fascist." Its saying that social democracy serves the same purpose. Conflating it with the "sit down with fascists..." saying is just you running with your misinterpretation and justifing yourself.

it's ridiculous to try and retroactively try and create some thin theoretical difference when this is pointed out.

I'm not doing anything retroactively. I'm just telling you what Stalin meant when he wrote it, and what we mean when we say it. Once again you're misinterpreting it and calling us cranks based on your misinterpretation

I never said anything like this. I said this place is useful for moving people left, and that it will be less useful for that if we get so up our own online asses that we can't tell when we're saying crank shit that doesn't even have a good theoretical basis.

This isn't crank shit. Your misinterpretation definitely is though. And you've been corrected on this multiple times it sounds like, and you really want to die on this hill over some kind of optics argument that we're "cranks" when the crank opinion your argueing against is just your own misinterpretation.

I'm sorry if you think the niche communist internst forum is "too online" if we read Stalin, understand him, and quote him about things he was correct about.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm just telling you what Stalin meant when he wrote it

You aren't a mind reader and you aren't some authority on the subject. We are both reading the same 100-year-old text and coming to different conclusions. I am not misinterpreting, you are not correcting, and the condescension is obnoxious.

My point from the beginning is that when people hear "XYZ is a moderate fascist," they interpret that to mean "XYZ is basically a fascist, even if this person thinks some other fascist is worse." No amount of quoting Stalin and claiming to know What He Truly Meant will change that this is what people hear.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Okay, you're not engaging in anything approaching good faith on this issue with me or anyone else here.

We are both reading the same 100-year-old text and coming to different conclusions.

Except your conclusion is a willful misunderstanding. I am correcting, because you are wrong. I'm not condescending. I'm talking to like an adult and an equal. Its okay to be wrong about something. Ive been generous by using the term misinterpretation because the text is so clear its not even open fir interpretation. I've gone out of my way to not be condescending despite your choice to mischaracterise the incredibly blatant text. your inability to engage in good faith is not only obnoxious but tedious.

My point from the beginning is that when people hear "XYZ is a moderate fascist," they interpret that to mean "XYZ is basically a fascist, even if this person thinks some other fascist is worse." No amount of quoting Stalin and claiming to know What He Truly Meant will change that this is what people hear.

I'm not presenting what I'm saying as "What he truly meant" as some sort of divination. I'm basically just repeating what the literal text said because it makes its point extremely clearly. That's why I'm even telling you your misunderstanding it and saying that I'm correcting you because its such a clear statement that its not even open to interpretation. Its not cryptic in the slightest, yet you choose to argue over it, and need to paint it like I'm divining its intent like a religious text to prove your point. Bad faith bullshit on your part, and for no reason.

Yeah, your point is just some dumb optics shit that has nothing to do with the quote. But we're all just cranks who are too online to see the truth lol.

I'm not talking with you anymore about this, because this is pointless and tedious. We're all just "too online" and you're the one true leftist. Congratulations

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I'm talking to [you] like an adult and an equal.

Lmao if you spoke to a stranger like this -- "you keep misinterpreting this," "you've now been corrected a few times," -- they'd either walk away or tell you to fuck off.

your point is just some dumb optics shit

Another sign of engaging in good faith -- "your point is dumb shit, why can't we talk about my point instead"!

Tell me more, O Master of Discourse!