Skip Navigation
Political Memes @lemmy.world
PugJesus @lemmy.world

Red fascists will do anything to help fascism

20 comments

  • Please, tell me more about how abandoning the united front with social democrats in 1928 at the behest of Stalin was totally necessary to ensure the rise of Hitler and a 'revolutionary crisis' 'liberate the proletariat'. Thalmann was such a hero for fighting for Hitler's success 😊

  • Why is it that the pro-democracy parties are always so hesitant to do the messy work of actual democracy?

    While the anti-democracy parties — the ones who say majority rule is a futile idea — seem to have no problem persuading people and making steady change even in the face of chaos, unrest, and internal conflict?

    • The reasons for that are numerous, unfortunately. A few points stick out as readily apparent, though:

      1. Democracy - the actual, hard work of democracy - is unexciting, to both the party apparatchiks and to normal people. The party apparatchiks want to feel like they're performing GREAT deeds instead of laying the foundation of the foundation of the foundation, and act and speak in accordance with that desire, even if they've actually accomplished fuck-all. This denial of reality both reduces their popularity and hinders them from doing the work they need to do actually do instead of jacking themselves off. Normal people, similarly, dislike the feeling of powerlessness that comes with being just one vote in a system of literal millions, where even if you become the political equivalent of an ascetic monk training every waking moment of every waking day to sway the electorate, unless you have some exceptional (and thus, well, abnormal) charisma deep in you for making a literal political career out of it, the chances of you swaying even just a few hundred votes - a fraction of a fraction of a percentage - is pretty slim. That's disheartening to a lot of people - so when the fascist ghouls say "EVERYONE SECRETLY AGREES WITH YOU BUT IS COWED BY THE LIBERALS INTO STAYING QUIET, WE JUST HAVE TO HIT THE LIBERALS REALLY HARD SO WE, THE STRONG AND CORRECT PEOPLE, CAN BE STRONG AND CORRECT" that is, unfortunately, appealing to the desire of many of them to feel powerful and victorious instead of being one more poor sod chipping away stone from a massive mountain.
      2. When genuinely pro-democracy groups end up in power, they tend to act in accordance with what they feel is the will of the people. Unfortunately, to paraphrase a man of questionable wisdom but significant wit, democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people, but the people are fucking stupid (see: 78% of Americans thinking there was a 'crisis' at the Mexican border that needed to be 'cracked down' on). Ordinary people are generally not very politically informed in the modern day and don't take their citizenship seriously - arguably this is an ancient problem, but no less relevant for that. Which means that any measures taken by genuinely pro-democracy groups are pretty inevitably hampered by Joe Average in the suburbs who gets his news from 30 minute (including commercials) CNN clips every Friday as dinner cooks getting worked up by immensely biased interpretations of issues he doesn't understand to begin with. When there's mass outcry against a measure, even one that is genuinely good for democracy or society, pro-democracy groups tend to shrink back in the face of real or perceived majority opposition. Not unfairly, considering the nature of democracy and the principles of it, but definitely something that ends up making democratic (small d) movements less 'efficient' at replacing worn-out institutions than fascist ghouls, who push until the pushback becomes threatening to their power, not to their principles (as fascists have no principles).
      3. When nominally pro-democracy groups (ie both genuine ideologues and non-genuine opportunists) end up in power, they tend to feel obligated to act within the limits of the government they have been elected to. This is to preserve the legitimacy of their democratic mandate - if the people vote for you to have X powers in Y circumstances, unilaterally saying "Oh, suddenly I have MORE powers in MORE circumstances" comes off as a violation of what power the people invested in you - and even if you don't give a fuck about the people, it is the perceived legitimacy lent by the approval or acquiescence of the people which gives standing institutions their power. As such, nominally pro-democracy groups have much less leeway for violating established laws and norms, even if it might actually be better - whether for their political org or for society in general.

      There are many more issues, but that's a... relatively brief and broad overview of some of the problems.

  • digging through all the uncited quotations to get to Hitler's Rival which is citing Der Weg in die Katastrophe, but that doesn't say February it says May 31, what Thalmann said was

    "Schließlich gab es in bet letzten Zeit an der Peripherie der Partei besonders in be- stimmten Schichten der Erwerbslosen eine solche Auffassung, Hitler müsse erst an die Macht, dann würden die Voraussetzungen zur revolutionären Krise beschleunigt heranreifen. Aber, Ge- nossen, man darf nicht spielen mit dem offenen Faschismus. Wir müssen unsere ganze revolutionäre Kraft einsetzen, um bie offene Machtübernahme der Nationalsozialisten durch unsere Antifaschi- stische Aktion zu verhindern."

    "After all, there has recently been a perception on the periphery of the party, especially among certain sections of the unemployed, that Hitler must first come to power, then the conditions for a revolutionary crisis would ripen more quickly. But, comrades, we must not play with open fascism. We must use all our revolutionary strength to prevent the National Socialists from openly seizing power through our Anti-Fascist Action."

20 comments