by Ramin Mazaheri for the Saker blog
Starting in 1917 the same reactionary European nations which attacked in the 7 European Wars Against the French Revolution now transferred this same refusal to make peace with the Soviet Union. The problem has always been an idea – anti-autocracy, the idea from which Socialist Democracy flows (and the Yellow Vests) – not a particular nation.
(This is the seventh chapter in a new book, France’s Yellow Vests: Western Repression of the West’s Best Values. Please click here for the article which announces this book and explains its goals.)
There is a clear moment when France definitively handed over its longtime leadership of European progressive politics. It is not 1914, when, unlike the Soviet Bolsheviks, French socialists went along with World War I: it is the creation of the Popular Front (Front Populaire) following the death of 15 people in a right-wing riot in 1934. The idea that committed socialists must be united with everyone from fake-leftists to right-wingers in order to fight fascism proved to be a total catastrophe.
Yet this idea remains the policy of Western leftism today, and it is still producing catastrophes.
The European lesson of the 1930s is that the working and middle class handed power to the socialists and communists – who immediately gave power back to the bourgeois!
Ever since the Brexit vote against the neoliberal and neo-imperial European Union Western democracies are perpetually stuck in 1936: constantly warning of “fascism” and constantly producing failures as bad as the original Popular Front in France.
However, because there is a total misunderstanding of what “fascism” is it is critical for us to end the Western propaganda on the rise of Germanic National Socialism in order to properly understand European history then and now. It is “Germanic” and not just “German” because their adherents were from Austria, Hungary, Prussia and other longtime German language/culture areas.
Germanic National Socialism had something vital in common with socialism: a clear rejection of Western Liberal Democracy, which was first installed in France’s 2nd Republic of 1848. Without elucidating the common thread of post 1789 political history — that Western Liberal Democracy is an oligarchy which has been barely modified from autocracy – European history makes no sense in 1936 or after. We may as well say Napoleon Bonaparte wasn’t a leftist revolutionary!
We move from the Paris Commune to 1936 because what occurred in 1936 was extremely similar: In February 1936 the electoral victory of a Popular Front coalition in Spain led to a legal take-over by socialists and anti-monarchists, only to see an international coalition of reactionaries arise to prop up the dictator General Francisco Franco and to foment civil and international war.
The Popular Front in France actually created the disastrous policy of “nonintervention” – the French left created it order to not intervene in the neighbouring Spanish Civil War. Nearly all of Europe signed up to diplomatically isolate and economically blockade the Spanish Republic. Indeed, Western Liberal Democracy wants to talk honestly about the Spanish Civil War as much as they want to they want to talk honestly the Paris Commune, 1848 or the 7 European Wars Against the French Revolution.
In May 1936 what would become the final elections of the French 3rd Republic were held. Amid the Great Depression the centre-left and left finally won control of the government, with 60% of the vote, and via campaigns expressly against the unprecedented power of the historically-new banking oligarchy. In July the Spanish Civil War began, and despite massive French support for the Republican leftists France’s allegedly left-wing government colluded with the British on the policy of non-intervention. Viewed from the new center of progressive politics – Moscow – the Popular Front’s non-intervention confirmed to the USSR that Western Europe was never going to have a socialist revolution; that such an idea had been a fool’s errand for over three decades; that Western Europe was going to side with fascism and go over to it, as Vichy France soon would. The USSR and Mexico would be the only nations to provide armed support to the Spanish Republic.
The Popular Front and Leon Blum, the first Socialist to be Prime Minister in France, would do a U-turn on the promised domestic reforms he was elected to implement. This is exactly what the Socialists François Mitterrand and François Hollande would do in 1983 and 2012, respectively. 1936 marks the point when Western leftists indisputably proved that they have abandoned Socialist Democracy in favor of Western Liberal Democracy – a fundamentally right-wing ideology rooted in monarchism, autocracy and oligarchy – and are thus right-wingers on the global political spectrum.
In April 1938 France’s Popular Front collapsed after failure in almost every sense. Its colossal disappointment after such huge progressive excitement caused massive disillusionment and directly led to the establishment of fascism in France two years later. The Popular Front provided the death knell for Western Liberal Democracy. Rather it should have, but by 1946 fascists, royalists and Western Liberal Democrats would – to steal a phrase from Marx regarding a similar melding for all classes of wealth in the 19th century – “become bourgeois”, i.e. all meld into one in order to stop Socialist Democracy.
This is where the West remains today.
They are totally against Socialist Democracy at home and abroad, and claiming Popular Fronts are needed to elect fake-leftist candidates who inevitably prove to be tools of long-running oligarchies.
In September 1938, now led by the Reformists (this is the most accurate term for the very misleadingly named “Radical Party” of France), the Munich Pact saw France stab the USSR in the back on the Franco-USSR pact of 1935, which stipulated joint military action against German belligerence. The Munich Betrayal, as it’s also known, saw France and the United Kingdom collude with fascist Germany and Italy to hand a huge chunk of Czechoslovakia to Hitler. Instead of combatting Germany’s war on Czechoslovakia the Popular Front preferred “appeasement” with fascism.
The collusion would continue: France and the UK recognised Franco in February 1939, even though he held just two-thirds of the country and not Madrid. (The army Franco originally led to start the war was the Spanish Army of Africa, based in Morocco. Much like France with Algeria in 1848, we see the pernicious domestic political effects of Europe’s Old World imperialism once again.)
Because we have located the start of neoliberalism and European neo-imperialism with the Paris Commune we see how these collusions make sense: these are Western Liberal Democratic countries, thus run by an oligarchical elite, thus opposed to any socialist-inspired country. They will always wage war against socialistic ideas which oppose oligarchical Western liberalism which, thanks to the domination of the banker class by the start of the 20th century, is more “globalist” than inter-marrying monarchs ever were. Popular Fronts are inevitably proven to be useless – they are mere safety valves for genuine leftism.
By June 1939 national polls showed that 84% of Britain favored an Anglo-French-Soviet military alliance – Britain’s Western Liberal Democratic politicians had no choice but to give the appearance of an effort. After six weeks of negotiations it became clear to Moscow that Britain’s appallingly minor representations were not interested in any sort of alliance with Socialist Democracy.
Only two days after they left a German delegation arrived in Moscow and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (a non-aggression pact and not any sort of alliance) was concluded precisely because the USSR saw that Western Liberal Democracies would never allow peaceful relations with socialist-inspired systems. Just as the revolutionary Napoleon Bonaparte wasted time in a burnt-down Moscow trying to make peace with an autocrat who never wanted it, so the USSR wasted time trying to make peace with autocrats and oligarchs.
Yellow Vest: “What I want for Christmas is for the Yellow Vests to join France’s social movements to stop Macron’s neoliberalism. But it would be even better if the whole world would become Yellow Vests to stop the ravages of high finance and globalisation.”
(Note: this book intersperses over 100 quotations taken from actual, marching Yellow Vests which were originally published in news reports on PressTV.)
Western leftists (mostly Trotskyists) howled that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a betrayal of leftist ideals. That’s a stunningly opportunistic and hollow claim, considering just how much France’s Popular Front and Western Liberal Democracies failed to defend Spain, and also how Western nations refused make peace with Moscow. Moscow had waited for 19 years for any other European country to turn socialist, but European progressive political thought was spent in Western Europe after 150 years.
Thus the USSR had given up, as it was clearly the eve of war. The Stalinists would certainly be proven right that fascism would sweep Germany, Austria, Spain and France – history clearly exonerates them, and indicts Western Liberal Democracy.
The USSR made a non-aggression pact with Germanic socialism because at the time so many assumed that fascism was going to fully replace totally discredited Western Liberal Democracies. That may seem hard to believe today, but the idea that Western Liberal Democracy was totally dead was a fundamental assumption of leftists, such as Trotsky.
It’s vital to understand this proper timeline of European history leading up to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact because it is entirely in keeping with the overarching theme of European history since 1789: collusion by oligarchical elites to rule in autocratic fashion, and in order to suppress Socialist Democratic ideas.
Of course Western Liberal Democracy has always tried to obscure this history, and they still do: a resolution adopted by the European Union in 2019 stated that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact “paved the way for the outbreak of World War II”, in a shameful rewriting of history. I don’t expect the EU to pass resolutions for the 7 European Wars Against the French Revolution, the failed Revolutions of 1848 or the Paris Commune anytime soon….
The West’s elite is fighting for Western Liberal Democracy, and thus they do not permit honest discussion and honest critiques of Western Liberal Democracy. This explains why there is no admission regarding the historical reality that Nazism and 1930s European fascism won power precisely because so many people grasped that Western Liberal Democracy was nothing but awful oligarchy.
Denying this historical reality is why Western politics has stopped making sense to the average Westerner: They simply cannot understand what fascism was, what it is, or how it arose – it arose via fascism’s successful, popular condemnation of Western Liberal Democracy.
The problem is that socialists don’t stress this point enough, in their nonsensical fear of being seen as colluding with fascism.
Knowing what ‘fascism’ truly is, and why socialists shouldn’t disavow it completely
Just as monarchy and feudalism was totally discredited to the average European by 1848, so Western Liberal Democracy and “debt feudalism/Bankocracy” was totally discredited by 1939.
This successful condemnation is why it’s simply inaccurate and absurd to say things like the “Nazis had no socialism”. To do so is tremendously counterproductive and simply false. Mussolini was the editor of Avanti!, the official voice of the Italian Socialist Party, and was once a leading Italian socialist. Socialists do not want to admit these things, but the failure caused by not explaining fascism’s relationship with socialism is that we cannot understand Western political history if we relinquish the incredibly necessary democratic criticism of Western Liberal Democracy and “Capitalism With Western Characteristics” as evidenced by fascism’s rise.
Hitler, reader of Marx, summed it up the initial similarities himself in 1922: Without his alleged “essential principle” – race – Nazism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground”.
However, instead of dispossessing a noble class via class politics he dispossessed races to creat a new noble class… and that is not really socialism, nor anything advocated in Marxism.
Why should socialists fear admitting the Marxism in Germanic socialism? If they do it’s probably because they seek the approval of Western Liberal Democrats. It’s clear that by including race – this is… not truly Marxism or socialism, but something different.
Or when Hitler rejected the class struggle, vital to socialism, by saying: “There are no such things as classes: They cannot be. Class means caste and caste means race.” Well, Nazism may include some Marxist analyses of political and economic historical development but this is… not really socialism, but something different.
Making an alliance with corporate powers, instead of appropriating from the greedy expropriators… this is not really socialism, either.
Choosing central guidance instead of central majority ownership… this is not really socialism.
Hitler was also the least internationalist politician you can think of – he totally rejected the internationalism of the class struggle and replaced it with a “community of the volk”. He only wanted to protect Teutonic citizens in his all-Germanic nation.
We can go on and on pointing out these differences.
But the rejection of Western Liberal Democracy – due to its decades of failures by an oligarchical, corrupt, plutocratic leadership barely different from 18th century monarchy – that actually is the same as socialism. The rejection of Western Liberal Democratic economics – due to the decades of failures by free market capitalism (i.e. the economic component of liberalism) – that is the same as socialism.
The Western Liberal Democrats of today simply do not want to talk about their often democratic rejection by people who feel its failures intimately.
Yellow Vest: “Our media have lost all credibility. Everything that you see on the mainstream media, and all of their reporters are under the boot of the government. For them the Yellow Vests don’t even exist anymore, on both the private and public stations.
So what was German National Socialism and Italian Fascism? It is socialism minus the hopeful egalitarianism and the internationalism, and replaced with pessimistic Darwinian elitism and racism. It’s a right-wing socialism whose only virtue is that it openly opposes the rich-are-smarter-and-should-rule ideology of Western Liberal Democracy, which opposed most of the French Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte, won the counter-revolutions of 1848, laid the foundations of the neo-imperial European Union in 1871, colluded to create World War I in order to forestall socialist revolution and which was ruining society in the 1930s just as it does today.
But proponents of elites who rule through a Bankocracy don’t want people to understand that fascism and Germanic National Socialism came to power by opposing the domination of international high finance and liberalism (whether “neo-”, “ultra-” or sans-préfixe it’s all the same: free markets, unregulated capitalism, rights only for those who can afford it), which forever is ultimately cover for an autocratic oligarchy.
So it can’t be stressed enough: Socialism has nothing to fear from free, honest, patient examination of the Nazis’ relationship with socialism. What needs to be rectified is the total disavowal of fascism which excludes its criticisms of Western Liberal Democracy.
However, Western Liberal Democracy has much to fear regarding true discussions of their relationship with the Nazis. They, over and over, allied with fascism against socialism in the 1930s; they colluded with the surviving Nazis and fascists after 1945; they encouraged 3rd-generation Nazis in places like Ukraine in the 21st century. Thus since the 1930s fascism and Western Liberal Democracy has been cooperating for more often than they have been fighting.
Where does fascism fit in the course of European economic development since 1492?
The fascists ultimately came to power by claiming they were different in their economic aims than Western Liberal Democrats.
By the turn of the 20th century industrialisation was no longer a novelty but the defining economic force. Landed wealth, Old World colonisation wealth, sea-trading wealth and mid-late 19th century industrial-financial wealth had been melded together into a banker-dominated financial system in which – of course – old money was predominant. The new banking system they created controlled the means of production and usuriously owned the land on which serfs recently lived. This is a clear timeline of economic history – it is not hard to understand, nor is it eternal.
Fascists promised to expropriate the wealth now held in the stewardship of banks and to do it via a new class – that of the magistrate; of individualist political power.
The word “fascism” stems from “fasces”, which is a bundle of sticks wrapped together topped by an ax. It’s originally an Etruscan symbol which symbolised the power of – not the people wrapped together – the magistrate. What was the magistrate in Rome? He was a high-ranking officer with both executive and judicial powers. Whatever the wealth or justice which Roman magistrates allowed to “trickle-down” was entirely up to them. It was an elitist, 1%-centered system and fascism’s advance was (allegedly) making the 1% class open to competition (which they said begins in one’s DNA) and cutting out the longtime aristocracy and new bankers. We see this is exactly like in Western Liberal Democracy today, and we now see why these two forces have allied together. The seal of the United States Senate, an aristocratic house of lords, features two crossed fasces.
Beyond autocratic powers for a non-monarchical elite, Western Liberal Democracy also mostly agreed with the key plank of the fascist’s economic program. “Central planning” does exist in modern Western countries – it is based around the military. For example, in the United States their economy is guided by the Pentagon, the world’s largest employer. The Pentagon hands out the fruits of their taxpayer-funded research to private companies; enriches their native bourgeoisie with hugely corrupt contracts; provides jobs for the masses terribly ineffectively; but it very effectively enriches their 1%.
Fascism was never for the people but dedicated to the power of those in power; for the status quo; for submission to essentially autocratic magistrates and politicians; against the redistribution of wealth and political power. It is only socialism which reduces the power of the magistrate, who makes him accountable and who improves the person of the magistrate by making sure he is not solely drawn from the elite, grasping class.
Fascism is different from the globalist class of Western Liberal Democracy by insisting on nationalist competition and national sovereignty. The arrival of the European Union, the euro and the Eurogroup, which will supersede national laws without any concern for ideals of democracy, will render these desires essentially irrelevant. The main sin of Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan, or of Marine Le Pen, is that these two fascist politicians both seek to restore some aspects of national sovereignty.
Trotsky wrote: “Fascism, as we know, is born between the union of the despair of the middle-classes and the terrorist policy of big capital.” Yet the West never takes a class view and elevates big capital to the status of demigods – this is why to them fascism must always be solely race-related and never economic-related. It’s simply a half-truth, and not understanding and combating this dooms Western politics – and their own history – to total misunderstanding.
The 1% and their lackeys immediately called the Yellow Vests fascists because it was a union of the lower and middle classes – like in the Paris Commune it also included a union of the lower class and the proletariat with the petty bourgeois small shopkeeper.
Yellow Vest: “For 10 years we have only created instability. 75% of France has serious economic difficulties. We have closed hospitals, nurseries, schools – everything is being closed, and this can’t go on!”
Due to there insistence on elitism, fascism could have only ever allied with Liberal Democracy – the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact is as far as it ever could have gone. However, if they had somehow allied with the USSR against Liberal Democracy what would they have permanently smashed? Answer: the Bankocracy which rules today.
It’s vital to recognise that, because the current usage of “fascist” completely lacks this historical-economic component.
The fascism of the 2020s is even more right-wing than the fascism of the 1930s
Due to the refusal to honestly talk about fascism – on both the Western left and the Western right – Western politics today are simply a catastrophe of nonsense and misinformation.
Their lack of knowledge allows them to obscure the fact that modern Western “fascists” are even more right-wing than Hitler, who was quite reliant on the Marxist explanation of 19th century history and economics. However, the modern right wing has expunged Marxism, and thus they cannot be actual fascists. Racism and fascism cannot be mere synonyms for each other – unless the goal is to neuter them of all meaning.
Being more right-wing than Hitler… that seems like something which should be understood, no? However, Western Liberal Democracy doesn’t want anything but propaganda regarding other systems and regarding its own failures and treasons.
The best term for today’s alleged “fascists” would be “Nalis” – Nationalist Liberalists: they have all the jingoism, militarism, authoritarianism and imperialism of 1930s fascists but combine it with right-wing Liberalist political structures, economic inequality and historical analyses.
It’s a simple and accurate political description, but only socialist-inspired countries which have fully rejected Western Liberal Democracy would ever apply the term “Nali”: Just as uninformed socialists don’t want to admit any ideological similarities with Nazism, so uninformed Western Liberal Democrats don’t want to admit that they are actually fighting internecine wars with their “National Liberalist” brethren. The use of “Nazi” or “fascist” is a way to distance themselves from each other despite the obvious similarities between each other.
And what do Western Liberal Democrats care if calling far-right Ukrainians “Nazis” in 2022 unfairly tarnishes socialism and spreads misinformation – both wings of Liberalists (one nationalist, the other globalist) are united in their anti-socialism.
Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen are two example of open Nalis, but so are two enemies – Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky. The Russian military operation in Ukraine has been a catastrophe of misinformation on both sides regarding who is a “fascist” and who is a “liberal”, and precisely because neither can admit that fascism and liberalism coincide and almost always ally, historically. Thus this battle between two Nali states is either a historical anomaly or, as I predict, Russia’s invasion will mark a step away from their Nalism since 1991 and back towards Socialist Democracy. If Russia continues to insist that “Russophobia” totally equates with “Nazism”, then this will herald their failure to return the fold of progressive politics.
In France, by 2017 the Great Financial Crisis – just the latest periodic failure of liberalism – had inflamed the masses too much for every single politician to ignore: Marine Le Pen thus dropped the Reaganism of her father and made it to the second round of the presidential election. She defended economic ideas which were both similar to the French left and to the Germanic National Socialists of the 1930s. In the 2022 campaign Le Pen reverted back to far-right economics, dropping all her promises for things like a “Frexit” vote within six months of election and for repudiating banker debt, yet the mainstream media called her “fascist” throughout the entire time.
The modern French and Western model was essentially created from 1928-1945, and what it took from fascism and Germanic National Socialism is that economic planning must be limited to the military, and that xenophobia, identity politics and security are spectacles just big enough to dominate the headlines, and thus to ignore liberalism’s failures. To put it in 2022 presidential candidate Eric Zemmour’s terms: France’s economic problem is Muslim welfare, not banker welfare. It’s a pathetic intellectual analysis. When the unrest in Ukraine began France immediately realised that and Zemmour’s popularity quickly halved.
Yellow Vest: “If you look around here you see people of all colours and religions. For me it goes beyond questions of origin – it’s really a question of social justice, regardless of someone’s ethnicity or religion.”
During the 2022 campaign the convicted racist Zemmour said he was, “here to save the French people and France…not here to save the world.” It’s a telling, semi-messianic remark because it is truly straight out of Adolf Hitler’s platform in the 1930s.
But such a comparison was never made by the mainstream media, and it could never be made. Many have heard of Godwin’s Law, or the rule of Nazi analogies: an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches. However, an important corollary is that whenever someone compares someone or something to Nazism – that person has lost the argument and/or the argument is summarily over.
Essentially, the world is to accept that all discussions of Western politics cannot discuss the anti-Western Liberalism ideology which was Germanic Nazism.
Thus it was impossible for them to accurately describe a 2022 French election where the four top candidates were all on the far-right – either economically, politically, culturally or all three. In the two-week interim between their two rounds of voting any criticism of Emmanuel Macron’s record was immediately shouted down in the mainstream media as “support for fascism” – voters wondered which candidate they were referring to. The failure to delineate fascism from Western Liberal Democracy means that we also cannot understand where they have reconciled a century later, just as how liberalism and monarchy eventually reconciled.
The Western right is stuck in falsely believing that the right of 2020 is the same as in the 1930s, despite all the anti-racist gains made since then; the Western left is stuck in falsely believing that their “Popular Front” tactic is actual leftism, despite being neutered of Marxism and socialism. This is why Western versions of history and their political discourse today simply make no sense. It only makes sense if we remember that obscuring political truths is a hallmark of Western Liberal Democratic history, and thus their versions are not truthful nor complete at all.
Not wanting to accurately define fascism or liberalism, but certain in their rejection of Socialist Democracy, after the first round vote in 2022 all the losing candidates (except Zemmour) immediately called for a Popular Front against Le Pen, just as they did in 2017. What’s vital and new is that the Yellow Vests empathically refused this form of class-collaborationism. The People’s Front tactic must be seen for what it is: not an effort to fight fascism but as a way to cement fake-leftism.
Trotsky wrote: “The racists pillage the Marxist program, successfully transforming certain of its sections into an instrument of social demagogy. The ‘Communists’ (?) as a matter of fact refuse their own program, substituting for it the rotten refuse of reformism. Can one conceive of a more fraudulent bankruptcy?”
Trotsky wrote that in 1935 but anyone can see that this is where the West is stuck, still:
Racists reject certain sections of Western Liberal Democrat economics in order to preserve White citizens from the united Bankocrats, while left-wingers hysterically prop up right-leaning moderates who only seek to refine Liberalism into an ever-more unequal system. Can you conceive of a more fraudulent ideological bankruptcy than modern Western politics?
If “Nali” ever did catch on one thing is certain: it would be a huge improvement.
Upcoming chapter list of the brand-new content in France’s Yellow Vests: Western Repression of the West’s Best Values. The book will also include previous writings from 2018 through the 2022 election in order to provide the most complete historical record of the Yellow Vests anywhere. What value!
Publication date: June 1, 2022.
Pre-orders of the paperback version will be available immediately.
Pre-orders of the Kindle version may be made here.
Pre-orders of the French paperback version will be available immediately.
Pre-orders of the French Kindle version may be made here.
Chapter List of the new content
- New book announcement – ‘France’s Yellow Vests: Western Repression of the West’s best values’ – March 15, 2022
- Introduction: A Yellow Vests’ history must rewrite both recent & past French history – March 20, 2022
- The UK’s endless reaction: 1789 & feudalism’s end creates modern conservatism – March 25, 2022
- Glorious Revolution of 1688: England declares ‘death to all other revolutions’ – March 29, 2022
- Modern political history makes no sense if Napoleon is not a leftist revolutionary – April 2, 2022
- The ‘Counter-Revolutions of 1848’ stillborn child: Western Liberal Democracy – April 7, 2022
- Louis-Napoleon: The revolutionary differences between Bonapartism & Western Liberal Democracy – April 11, 2022
- The Paris Commune: The true birth of neoliberalism and EU neo-imperialism – April 17, 2022
- Where the West is stuck: The fascism of the 1930s and the ‘fascism’ of the 2020s
- On ‘Leon Trotsky on France’ in order to reclaim Trotsky from Trotskyists
- The Yellow Vests’ childhood: Seeing French elites, only, swayed by neoliberalism
- No one here is actually in charge: How the EU empire forced the Yellow Vests
- The radicalisation by Europe’s ongoing Lost Decade: the Great Recession changes France
- To Yellow Vests he’s the radical: Macron and ‘Neither Right nor Left but the Bourgeois Bloc’
- Yellow Vests: At worst, the most important French movement for a century
- Who are they, really? Ask a reporter whose seen a million Yellow Vest faces
- Yellow Vest Win: Ending the West’s slandering of all popular movements as far-right xenophobes
- Yellow Vest Win: The end of Western anarcho-syndicalism & unions as leftism’s hereditary kings
- Yellow Vest Win: The end of Western parliamentarianism as the most progressive government
- Yellow Vest Win: Reminding us of the link between fascist violence & Western democracy
- What the Yellow Vests can be: a group which can protect liberalism’s rights, at least
- The 2022 vote: The approach needed for ‘Before’- what came ‘After’ polls closed
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.
INDIA TODAY editor Geeta Mohan talks with Chechen fighter
I could only watch the first 4 minutes….that indian lady is just terrible. My apologies to the indian readers.
When banks and financial interests control the economy and politics, you cannot reform politics without taking control of these financial institutions.
“The only way to control banks and their allied rentier sectors is outright socialization. The past century has shown that if society does not control the banks and financial sector, they will control society”.
“Will the government enforce bank and bondholder claims, or will it give priority to the economy and its people? That is an eternal political question spanning pre-capitalist, capitalist and post-capitalist economies”.
Nothing will change for the simple reason that the people don’t care, oh they whine and cry, but that’s as far as it will ever go because they only care about themselves while calling it freedom. As my father always said, “the American people will go for anything as long as they think it’s free” and they always have and will, and you aren’t going to change that. As Buffet said it’s been a war, a class war, and we won, and so they did, and now the people will simply have to live with it.
I am again reminded of the words of the Central Banker Paul Warburg who said and I quote:
“The world lives in a fools paradise based upon fictitious wealth, rash promises and mad illusions. We must beware of booms based upon false prosperity which has its roots in inflated credits and prices.”
I believe this was the result of ‘giving priority to the economy and its people?’ The roaring 20’s set the stage for the great depression and Warburg could see it all and his contempt for the political class for allowing it to occur was huge.
Socialism is indeed the desire of these men but it revolves more around feudalism as Carrol Quigley argued in his tome Tragedy and Hope.
That Warburg and Rothschild were from Rabbinical families tells us that religion plays an important role.
Add to that Rockefeller and his desire to chip everyone electronically reveals how money has gone from gold to paper to a bank number which will funnel us all into what was foretold by St. John in Revelation 13:16
It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.
If the QR Code, the Social Credit System of China and crypto currency doesn’t hold in its hands the power now to fulfill this very thing?
So your last question will it be government or the economy and its people? I think we have the answer, a coming king working I fear in cahoots with current monarchies who lost their kingdoms but will be getting it back with a vengeance?
That is my suspicion. That and a coming Robinhood moment.
Why is it that people who never worked a day in their life
That never started a company, or built a business up from nothing
Why is it that these intellectuals can sit around planning on who to kill and who to subsidize??
This site always goes long on COMINTERN philosophy, but short on actual substance.
Where is the talk of the Trillions spent by China building the ‘silk road’ from Shanghai to Haif-Fa Israel, where in Israel alone last ten years a Trillion USD has been spent modernizing Israel infrastructure, no other place in the west has gotten an upgrade. Even the Haifa port has brand-new nuclear german submarines all paid for by Israel
Not a peep; We’re told to believe this is a about ‘socialism’ or ‘capitalism’ but most people are just mushrooms kept in the dark. where the OWNERS just give out enough EBT go keep the system running.
Lastly, before anybody concludes Israel WON, remember they got +90% of the COVID shots, on 5th shot, and 10th booster, the most vax’d place on earth, all injected with IB-Farben vax, where zyklon-b failed with hitler, the new owners have one; Only the Khazarian & orthodox jews will be left standing to reap profits from the silk-road;
Women come & go talking of michael angelo, but the Kibbutz jews who represent real communalism & socialism are being culled to extinction and not a peep, from the so called ‘guardians’ of truth.
All very complex all this for even alert people to to figure out.
Israel obviously has long need a infrastructure upgrade.
Ever since the days of Pharaohs.
If so you need to get China to help work out a deal stop all this conflict with Iran.
Concerning the view on class. I recently saw that the official “Political Education Center” BPB in Germany now says that a socialist class-based view equals racism, and takes this as a reasonto iniate the secret service surveillance of such organisations. They are thus corroborating Hitler’s view quoted above. 🤮
‘Denying this historical reality is why Western politics has stopped making sense to the average Westerner: They simply cannot understand what fascism was, what it is, or how it arose – it arose via fascism’s successful, popular condemnation of Western Liberal Democracy.’
I’m afraid that the author needs to be a bit more self-critical.
The sole reason for Hitler’s rise to power was the post-WWI settlement, with the victors crushing Germany into pulp for years thereafter. Germany had no chance to prosper with that maniacally obscene set of demands and the inevitable result was the Weimar Republic and hyperinflation.
John Maynard Keynes spelt it out before 1920: the post-war settlement has set the terms for the next war in Europe.
Hitler basically said: ‘I will not tolerate the terms of Armistice because it treats Germans like total slaves’.
That is what was popular.
What he did after gaining power is a totally different discussion.
But the reason Hitler emerged was that it required a total rejection of the victorious powers’ demands to see Germany capable of restoring its national self-dignity.
That settlement had zero to do with ‘Western Liberal Democracy’ as you wish to call it and all about greedy avaricious bankers and oligarchs wanting to extract gold from every German stone from 1919 to 1999.
The author should also remember that the UK did not HAVE democracy until 1918. Votes for Women in the UK was only enacted during WWI. So 50% of the whole population had been permanently disenfranchised for 1000 years and more. Hardly ‘democracy’ was it?
Women had the vote in England before 1918. They were able to vote 100 years before then, provided they owned land. English rights centre around property. Indeed women could vote before Catholics and before the landless working classes ever got a look in. And whilst law remains centred on property and not people, whilst the country has no written constitution, whilst little good has been done since the Magna Carta (1215) to stop the encroaching of a monopolistic power base, GB remains far from democratic.
What you state has no relation to the reality of Germany in the post-WW1 years.
German politics at the time was less determined by the onerous duties imposed by the winning side (which played some role) but was a fight between socialism as represented by the at the time still socialist Social Democratic Party and the more radical communist party and the parties that represented the ruling class that was supported by the Prussian Junkers, the officer corps hailing from this right-wing cesspool, the leading German industrialists like Krupp, Thyssen, Stinnes, Warburg, Quandt, the IG Farben complex, etc., with a helping hand from Wallstreet (see Sutton, Wallstreet and the rise of Hitler).
Into this fight entered Hitler with his National Socialism (NSDAP), in the early 1920s, which actually had the Strasser brothers developing an anticapitalistic ideology, representing a wing of the party, but a socialism based on the national interests only, shunning internationalism that was a sign of the socialist left, with some heavy dose of the “voelkische” idea of a supremacy of the German race.
You either have no idea of the actual political situation of the German politics of the post WW1 and Weimar era or willfully neglect those to further your ahistorical interpretation.
The EU ruling class will use any political paradigm to retain control of things, and for their agenda to push east into Russia. Doesnt matter what brand of socialism, fascism etc.. they peddle and install – its all gimmick.
Same in the US UK etc…
Look at the US since 1900 and it brand of Presidents –
Teddy Roosevelt – outdoorsman administration
Woody Wilson – academic theorist administration.
Harding, Coolidge, Hoover – Wall Streets administration
FDR – so called New Deal president with old deal people running things the same
Truman – more of the same and start of the new.
Eisenhower – MIC man & steady as she goes administration
JFK – tried to make changes but didnt get far
LBJ – corruption unlimited administration
Nixon – return to Ike and 1920s era.
Carter – fill-in administration
Reagan – follow the script president like he did in Hollywood
Bush 1 – do nothing administration domestically
Slick Willy Clinton – leftist corruption while the elite get rich.
Bush 2 – do nothing at home too administration but see the oil industry & MIC profits expand
Obama – really 3rd and 4th terms of Bush 2 hidden under Democrat skirts and did very little
Trump – tax cuts for the rich & try to drain the swamp didnt get far
Biden – chaos and stupidity unlimited
France far worse.
La mascarade est terminée et le vrai visage de “l’Occident” est révélé
The masquerade has finished and the true face of “the west” is revealed
https://t.me/azmilitary11/2970 (Sieg Heil wine and so on)
Meantime the propaganda endlessly speaks of nuclear matters…priming the gullible to believe the innocent guilty, and the guilty innocent… do look at the oh so special bottles…
Hi Ramin Mazaheri
“The European lesson of the 1930s is that the working and middle class handed power to the socialists and communists – who immediately gave power back to the bourgeois!”
George Orwell said almost the exact same thing:
George Orwell: A Life in Pictures Full Documentary
Also, as you mentioned the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, you may find this interesting:
The War That Had Many Fathers – Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof
I am not enough of a historian to parse it, but there seems to be a lot of important nuances that never made it into the official history we were all taught. IMHO
Thanks for your essay!
Thank you for the valuable links, especially that second one of the German historian. It is surely uncanny to see so many parallels to the present situation as it unfolds. The lying and deceptions increase only with the even wider spread immorality.
“It is surely uncanny to see so many parallels to the present situation as it unfolds.”
That scared me too. The overall picture the Rhonhof paints reminds me of the situation we are all living through now. I am sure that was not the author’s intention, as the video was produced in 2015. However, I came away from the video with a lot of fear. And World War I ignited over the same reason, Serbian minorities in a multi-ethnic state. In a hundred years, have we learned anything?
The other recommendation I would make is the following book, with some reservations:
Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War
Buchannan pushes too hard to create his alternate thesis, and glorifies the West too much, which makes the book painful to read at times, however, he does go into lots of details that are rarely mentioned by other scholars, that really shows how unplanned everything was at the time. In most histories we get the narrative of Hitler’s master plan and that he tricked Chamberlain, etc. However, that was not the case at all. If you can get past Buchannan’s editorializing it also has a lot of the same elements of Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof’s “The War that had Many Fathers”. Buchannan would have done better if he just did what Rhonhof did and “correct the record”, instead of trying to give the war an alternate father. IMHO
For what it is worth…
PS: The inordinate role that the press played in Buchannan’s book really frightens me, as I see it doing the same today.
As a White Southerner I could only wish my people were ‘fascist’ – that way we would protect ourselves against the constant encroachments of New England Yankee and Jew culture, but, we aren’t.
We have been completely taken apart mentally by the alliance of those two parties, they would will micromanage your affairs down to what you think and say.
The only way you can talk them out of it is at gunpoint.
They respect nothing else.
It is astonishing how few of the myriad discussions of “fascism” actually define the term. Applying Occam’s razor to the definition of fascism, provides what is arguably the simplest and therefore best definition. And, for that we do indeed, need to return to 1930s and the “father of fascism” Benito Mussolini. Mussolini defined fascism as “the merger of State and corporate power.” Since it is the oligarchs that control, the economy (corporations), media and governing institutions in almost all nation-states, the definition of fascism could be clarified as “the merger of State and oligarchic power. By this definition, almost all current nation states are fascist. The only exceptions that come to mind are China, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and perhaps a few others on the cusp such as Bolivia. These so-called non-fascist states, aka socialist states, achieve this distinction by having a governing elite that puts the common good, the welfare of the greatest number of its people above that of the ruling and economic elite. By that definition, all of the nation-states that are party to the Ukraine war are fascist, most notably the U.S., Russia, E.U. and most especially the current Ukrainian regime. Turning again to Occam, the Ukrainian war can be seen most simply as a war between fascist nation-states.
And it’s corollary from Georgi Dimitrov, fascism “as the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.”
Once the state and corporate are melded, the corporate will dominate the state so that it might serve finance capital rather than the needs and aspirations of the people of the state. This can retain the trappings of liberal democracy. When the promises of liberal democratic capitalism fail the people, they become fertile ground for Dimitrov’s observation.
“With the development of the very deep economic crisis, with the general crisis of capitalism becoming sharply accentuated and the mass of working people becoming revolutionized, fascism has embarked upon a wide offensive. The ruling bourgeoisie more and more seeks salvation in fascism, with the object of taking exceptional predatory measures against the working people, preparing for an imperialist war of plunder, attacking the Soviet Union, enslaving and partitioning China, and by all these means preventing revolution.”
I’m not a Marxist. Good analysis, faulty prescriptions.
This doesn’t apply to Russia, the RF is in the same group with China, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Cuba because they put the common good and the welfare of their people above the welfare of the few.
I had a hard time finishing this. Mussolini and Hitler did the exact same thing that liberal democrats do today. They fully understand that socialism is logically very appealing to the working/lower classes, so they adopt a false veneer of a socialist during critical moments to appeal to those in the lower classes gullible enough (or simply overworked and without the time to properly vet their words) to believe them in their quest for power. Once they achieve that power, they simply refuse to follow the policies they supposedly espoused prior to achieving power/position. Once in power they create a security state to prevent themselves from being overthrown-and the oppression begins. These people (these people-Hitler, Mussolini, & all modern Neoliberals) are not and never were leftists, ffs.
Another interesting thing is that the author is constantly trying to associate the word democrat/democracy with liberals/liberalism. This was/is also done by liberals/neoliberals in order to give their movements/ideology a false veneer of popular legitimacy. They have never been democratic. I do not know this author, but it almost seems (to me at least) as if they are attempting to create a false perception here as well, that democracy itself is a problem by associating it with liberalism (or it’s current actual mode of operation-neoliberalism). Every time the rare and actual democracy gets tried, some powerful internal or external group overthrows it.
Exactly! How much socialist the national socialists were, everyone could see in 1934. The Strasser-brothers were kicked out, one of them killed, and that was their reward for the illusion that Hitler was even remotely socialist. He was less socialist than Klaus Schwab who is very “socialist” indeed with his “you will own nothing” slogan. This is all about class. Georgi Dmitrov understood very well that the Nazi was the opposite of socialism, the most reactionary instrument of finance capital. The truth is that Hitler let himself and Germany be instrumentalised by the anglos as a tool against Soviet and Russia. He believed that the anglos could be his friends! They were apparently until they came to suspect that Germany could perhaps win over the Soviets and become a new empire on the heartland.
To Ramin, Arkady, and Ulrich. (I also had a hard time finishing Ramin’s article)
The pseudo-socialists Hitler, Trotsky, Tito, Tony Bliar, and so forth are Nazis (i.e. Ashkenazi mafia / Rothschild agents) and total frauds.
I reckon Lenin and Stalin (Marxist-Leninists) were in essence genuine, although forced to make do with the traitors, opportunists and imposters around them.
Hitler / SS is comparable to Al-Baghdadi / ISIS, not to hitman Saddam Hussein.
Adolf Hitman’s job was among other things to establish Israel (e.g. the persecution of European Jews and the false flag holohoax) and destroy Stalin’s Marxist-Leninist USSR – as well as to enslave, destroy Germany and what remained of its sovereignty – on behalf of the Ashkenazi mafia.
“Once they achieve that power, they simply refuse to follow the policies they supposedly espoused prior to achieving power/position.”
I don’t think so. On the contrary, they did more or less what they promised.
You are just projecting your desires into the past.
Democracy, without free-fair-honest media, is Tyranny.
The best book I’ve read on the fascism of France in the 1930’s, and the full intention to create a powerful Germany that was supposed to invade the USSR, is « Le Choix De La Défaite », by Dr. Annie Lacroix-Riz, 2nd. ed. 2010. The book is 690 pages with 65 pages of archival sources, densely packed. By the late 1920’s all the newspapers and journals that could be bought off, the French fascists had already bought up. Later, the Nazi officials congratulated the French elite and themselves at how the French tightly controlled their own press. That German economic miracle while France suffered the inter-war depression ? Not so much of a miracle when you learn that all the major French banks were loaning money to Germany at 3% while starving French industries on 8% loans. French industry was shipping millions of tons of steel and coal to Germany, completely aware this was going into weapons production. Germany was building as many warplanes in a month as Britain and France in a year ? No worries, the Germans were going to attack to the east. Over 90 German Army divisions against France’s 60 divisions and Britain’s two (yes, 2, not a typo) divisions ? The British and French military leaders slept soundly in the belief that Hitler was headed east. For about 5 years, Czechoslovakia was gaslighted by French and British diplomats who convinced the Czechs that neither Britain nor France would not honor their solemn obligations from the Versailles Treaty, to protect Czech sovereignty. The plan was to feed Czechoslovakia to Germany, which increased Germany’s war production by 45%, and the German forces, also by 45%.
Please, can anyone help get this book translated into other languages ? It’s an explosive book. It was written for French graduate students, so it is dense and you have to make notes as a reader. It needs immediately translated into the other languages of the world, and then a competent historian needs to help Dr. Lacroix-Riz to rewrite it into a shorter version for the general public.
I have not seen the allegations of « Le Choix De La Défaite » anywhere else. I’m surprised the French government even allowed it to be printed.
Hitler was indeed headed East. And Soviet foreign minister Litvinov tried in vain to make an alliance with the UK and France. Stalin commented that Hitler got Czechoslovakia as a reward to attack the Soviet. Hitler firmly believed that the UK was a friend. The thought that a putative German empire was unacceptable to the UK did obviously not occur to him. Hence Rudolf Hess’ flight to England.
“The word ‘fascism’ stems from ‘fasces’, which is a bundle of sticks wrapped together topped by an ax. It’s originally an Etruscan symbol which symbolised the power of – not the people wrapped together – the magistrate.”*
This incorrect and non-military definition of the word is influenced by its usage in past politics. When Mussolini named his party after it the left created a phantom Golem of evil incarnation.
Woody Guthrie even painted “This Machine Kills Fascists” on his guitar. With so much evil in the world, why would he focus on just one supposed branch? Probably the influence of his Jewish wife, among others.
Generic fascism defined: ‘unified for strength’.
Republicans are rarely ‘republican’ nor Democrats ‘democratic’, but every lasting enterprise must be unifed. Every single one!
*Sticks surrounding a weak handled battle ax bound by three leather straps, for increased strength, probably first used in battle by Etruscans and later by Rome as a symbol of unity.
Talking about racism today, after all that has been said and written, isn’t it a waste of time? It will always work a little, there will always be dishonest people to use it, but we don’t get more than 20% of votes with racism, the extreme right or left have proven it in all countries. Racism is not totalitarianism. Racism is not fascism. Fascism can do 50%.
Saying that the yellow vests are made up of people of all colors proves what? Nothing. Macron voters are made up of people of all colors as well. Yet it is obviously a fascist party.
“I am deeply convinced that true fascism is what sociologists have too kindly called “the consumer society”, a definition which seems inoffensive and purely indicative. It is not so.
It is no longer a question, as in the Mussolini era, of a superficial, scenographic regimentation, but of a real regimentation, which stole and changed their souls. Which means, ultimately, that this “consumer civilization” is a dictatorial civilization.
In short, if the word “fascism” means violence of power, the “consumer society” has indeed realized fascism.
No fascist centralism has succeeded in doing what the centralism of the consumer society has done. ”
Pier Paolo Pasolini, Corsair Writings (1976)
The level of anti-Russian backlash in the West clearly shows one important thing. It’s because fascism is present everywhere in the West (US / UK / Europe…). It is now possible to make the majority accept that a community can be condemned for arbitrary reasons devoid of any logical or rational basis. Same thing for the reaction anti vax, anti yellow vests, anti Le Pen, anti Iraqi, anti Syrian, anti “any individual who does not deny his identity and endorses that of the liberal western norm”.
“It’s because fascism is present everywhere in the West (US / UK / Europe…).”
One of the facilitating sleights of hand was to assign another name to the phenomena to suggest that they were qualitatively different, whilst the phenomena were only quantitatively different.
A similar trick was used by the Boisheviks when they called themselves “The Communist Party of the Soviet Union”.
This ill informed chapter misrepresents the ideas of genuine Marxism in the 1930s and completely misunderstands the nature of fascism.
The author fails to understand why the Popular Front governments in Spain and France failed to fulfill the revolutionary aspirations of the working class. These were popular fronts from above and did not follow the united front from below policy of Lenin and the Third International in the early 1920s. In both countries the workers took control of the economy by occupying the factories.
Sadly, they were betrayed in France by the Communist Party leadership of Thorez and Doriot who were ordered at the behest of the Stalinist leadership of the Comintern to send the workers back to work when they power in their grasp. Of course, the reformist leadership of the SP led by Leon Blum did not oppose the derailing of the revolutionary wave from below.
In Spain the situation was even more tragic where in Catalonia, as vividly described by George Orwell in his Homage To Catalonia, the working class had taken control of society. The Popular Front government instead of formally declaring a socialist society and the abolition of capitalism engaged in negotiation/ruling with the shadows of the ruling class.
In May 1927 at a critical time for the revolution the Stalinist leadership of the Communist Party stabbed the revolution in the back and attacked the POUM and murdered its leadership. The workers were disorientated and confused and politically disarmed by the collusion of the Largo Caballero led government together with the leaders of the anarchists. The revolution never recovered from this civil war within a civil war.
It is clear that the writer does not understand the nature of German fascism which was a mass movement of the middle class and lumpen proletariat which was financed by German industrialists, as admitted to by steel magnates such as Thyssen in his memeoirs, This mass movement was used a a battering ram to smash the workers parties (SPD/KPD) and the trade unions. It was a great tragedy that the most powerful labour movement in Europe did not fight back and allowed Hitler to come to power. Back in 1920 a united labour movement organised a general strike that defeated the Kapp Putsch. The same kind of action was needed in the early 1930s to defeat the Nazis.
In Germany the labour movement was terribly divided by the fratricidal strife injected into its ranks by the KPD which was following Stalin’s insane social fascism (class against class) policy. This labelled workers who supported the SPD as ‘ social fascists’. This policy which was part of Stalin’s opportunist turn to the ultra left as he attempted to outflank the Right Opposition after expelling the Left Opposition from the Bolshevik Party.
We even saw the infamous situation where the KPD held temporary alliances with the Nazis to attack the SPD led government in Prussia.
In late January 1933, days after Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor by President Hindeburg, Trotsky correctly forecast that the triumph of fascism in Germany put the world on the road to World War 2. He noted that the Comintern had become a completely reactionary bankrupt organisation, a million miles removed from the internationalist organisation which he and Lenin set up in 1919. The Comintern became an organisation devoid of any principles in its promotion of Stalin’s foreign policy which sought a military alliance with British and French imperialism. The defeat of the most powerful labour movement in Europe removed a major barrier to the next inter imperialist conflict. Stalin’s disastrous foreign policy of the 1930s with its unprincipled zig zags brought the world’s first workers state to the brink of disaster and left it unprepared for the German invasion of 1941.
But Dr Tresell, both Lenin and Trotsky were controlled by the angloamerican elites. Lenin lived in the home of Whitwell Wilson of the Pilgrim Society=top angloamerican elite umbrella organisation. And Lenin confirmed that the anglosaxons could easily have crushed the bolshevik side in the initial phase of the war of intervention which is often called the civil war. The anglosaxons wanted the revolution.
And they repeated this behaviour for all the longlasting communist countries.
Trotsky’s behaviour and outlook was in good agreement with the aims of British imperialism to make sure Russia did not become a modern industrialised competitor.
This is not changed by any other thing he said for the record so to speak.
The purpose of the world revolution Trotsky aimed for is related to what the globalists aim for: a world order with one currency controlled by the anglosaxons.
Independent of what narrative Trotsky peddled to the guillible.
John Ruskin explained why the aristocracy went on about socialism: because they wanted the masses to admire and feel affection for them so they would accept them as a superior level of power.
It turned out that Lenin didnt play along all the way as expected but this also put an end to his life.
One assault against him was performed by a competing socialist branch under british control.
Your ill informed comments ignore the bloody price paid by the workers who resisted the attempts by Western imperialism to crush the revolution in blood. The Western imperialist powers sent 14 armies to support the monarchist forces trying to violently overthrow the revolution. This violent overthrow of the fledgling workers state was defeated by two interlinked factors. There was the heroic resistance of the Russian workers and soldiers/sailors who paid a high price in blood defending the revolution. Then there was the resistance displayed by workers all over the world to defend the Russian Revolution. In the UK Harry Pollitt led the successful struggle to prevent arms supplies from the UK getting to Russia to support the counter revolution. The unions even threatened a general strike against further UK involvement in the counter revolution. Struggling with bankruptcy and faced with a very powerful wave of strikes the British state withdrew its support for the monarchist forces wanting to destroy the Russian Revolution.
You have a Trotskyist interpretation, which this article does not.
I think it’s an excellent condensation of what happened. Stalin and the USSR tried leftism over and over, they finally had to concede, and then even fight.
Trotskyists just complain.
Where the West is stuck: The fascism of the 1930s and the ‘fascism’ of the 2020s
After world war 2 ! The fascists were well looked after in Europe! The cold war was so convenient in hiding them in plan sight!
After having suffered a crushing defeat by the Red Army, all the prominent Nazi figures of the German’s fascist regime found their refuge in the USA and South America. Their grandchildren, under the pretense of democracy, are raising their Nazi heads again! Needles to say, they will be crushed once again!
Why is the fascism of the 2020s in quotations? There is only one definition of fascism and it is applicable for both the fascism of the 1930s and the one of the 2020s. Period!
I couldn’t disagree more with the following statement when you understand exactly who financed the Bolchevik revolution: “Due to there insistence on elitism, fascism could have only ever allied with Liberal Democracy – the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact is as far as it ever could have gone. However, if they had somehow allied with the USSR against Liberal Democracy what would they have permanently smashed? Answer: the Bankocracy which rules today.”
The truth is that bankers and revolutionaries part of the same network, the same people, Quite often the same families… As much as the west disgusts me today, it doesn’t mean I will begin to believe that the blood thirsty Bolchevik were good guys
O Nazismo mais não é do que o Fascismo racista e genocida.
Nazismo e Fascismo mais não fizeram do que salvar a velha ordem burguesa , oligárquica e imperialista fazendo desaparecer a luta de classes sob o manto da união anticomunista dos explorados (trabalhadores) e dos exploradores (oligarquia financeira, industrial e latifundiária e pequena burguesia comercial) e da manutenção e expansão colonial vista como imperativo nacional (Fascismo italiano, espanhol e português) ou sob o manto de uma mesma entidade rácica exclusiva (a Herrenvolk) que utopicamente conseguiria irmanar exploradores e explorados numa tarefa imperialista e genocida que seria a conquista da URSS e o extermínio da maior parte dos seus habitantes (Fascismo racista e genocida, ou seja, Nazismo).
O Fascismo de hoje mais não é do que a actual oligarquia (financeira e globalista) a tentar impor a todo o planeta o seu poder de tudo roubar utilizando para atingir esse fim a “zombificação” de sociedades inteiras através da inoculação (com “políticas de género”, endeusamento da “diversidade” de um só sentido, destruição da célula-base que é a família e aniquilação do pensamento científico e analítico nos sistemas de ensino, entre outros instrumentos de imperialismo cultural e económico) do culto nihilista e completamente estéril do “eu”.
Quando só há o “eu”, nunca há um “nós”, e é do “nós” (o “nós” socialista que, de forma internacionalista, não vê inimigos em outros “nós” cultural, rácica e historicamente diferentes do seu, mas neles vê, isso sim, solidários companheiros de jornada neste mundo) que as oligarquias têm um medo de morte.