Capitalism in Decay

1287 readers

29 users here now

Fascism is capitalism in decay. As with anticommunism in general, the ruling class has oversimplified this phenomenon to the point of absurdity and teaches but a small fraction of its history. This is the spot for getting a serious understanding of it (from a more proletarian perspective) and collecting the facts that contemporary anticommunists are unlikely to discuss.

Posts should be relevant to either fascism or neofascism, otherwise they belong in !latestagecapitalism@lemmygrad.ml. If you are unsure if the subject matter is related to either, share it there instead. Off‐topic posts shall be removed.

No capitalist apologia or other anticommunism. No bigotry, including racism, misogyny, ableism, heterosexism, or xenophobia. Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome.

For our purposes, we consider early Shōwa Japan to be capitalism in decay.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml

From the perspective of someone in the early 1920s, what warning signs were there of Classical Fascism's horrors? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 months ago by comfy@lemmy.ml to c/capitalismindecay@lemmygrad.ml

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

[Classical] Fascism was interesting for a few reasons, some of them being its relationship to the labour movement:

ᴉuᴉlossnW was a prominent socialist until their expulsion from the PSI for their nationalist views, and if we take them at their word in their last testament while captured by communists, they considered themself a socialist
Fascism managed to bring other former Marxist communists into their ranks, notably Nicola Bombacci, a founding member of the Communist Party of Italy in 1921 until their expulsion for fascist views in 1927
Fascism was economically a class-collaborationist ideology (specifically corporativism, from the Latin corpus, body)

Now, of course, we have the benefit of hindsight and can see what a disaster Italian fascism and its friends were and the name of 'fascism' is forever tainted. But theoretically a modern equivalent could similarly appeal to both nationalists and the socialist-leaning today in a similar way. Fascism doesn't logically imply racism, nor does it necessarily exclude certain types of progressivism: see BUF gaining large support from women by being pro-suffrage, see environmentalism of eco-fascists, and consider some modern neofash parties adopting social democrat policy points.

With all this in mind, what were the early warning signs that Fascism was not going to be pro-worker, despite its rhetoric? How well do you believe socialists will be able to spot them?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SadArtemis@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 months ago

also resolves the paradox of why ‘White’ foreigners were treated so differently from ‘Black’ foreigners;

In this regard, sadly, while it's not nationalism (a sensible nationalist would if anything, dislike white westerners in particular and may even find common cause with other non-whites, particularly those who also aren't western)... black stereotypes play only one small part in that IMO, and if anything probably a considerably lesser part than the obvious- white worship, white beauty standards, etc... the "post-colonial" mentality is all around us, and no part of the world is exactly exempt from that.

"White" foreigners, particularly those from the "wealthy/prestigious" west, have a particular premium- the kind that comes from having roamed about with extraterritoriality in most places, with enforced racial supremacy and with near-undisputed hegemony for centuries (how many centuries differs by region, but China has over a century of trauma for instance in this regard). I hear of the same, or very similar, treatment being given to Asians (east, south, west), to visibly mixed/non-white Latinos, etc... whiteness simply happens to be a currency in its own right, and not just in Asia, as far as I've very credibly heard second-hand, or seen online, the same goes for Africa and Latin America as well (LatAm having its own messed up racial hierarchies very similar in nature tbh).

In that same vein, western-ness has its own prestige as well; I imagine an African-American might, despite all the negative stereotypes, be seen in a much better light in Asia than an African from Africa or the Caribbean (not that people would dislike the African, necessarily/probably?) I certainly (often, not always) experienced better treatment with strangers for my own Canadian accent, despite being fully Asian.

And as this is regarding the treatment of black/white foreigners in Asia- if it helps, I don't think the stereotypes carry over as much to black people (even tourists) in Asia, nor to black people who don't present themselves as part of "gangsta culture." African-Americans in Asia aren't exactly likely to behave in such a manner, after all- so it really is a matter of white prestige (and on some level also colorism, which has a much longer history than colonialism in Asia and I don't really think is tied to nationalism either).

Other than that- I'm aware of the Boondocks, while I've not watched it (eventually) I've really enjoyed a lot of the show's clips, tbh. Their take on BET seems absolutely spot-on... IMO a very similar phenomenon is very visible (and widely complained about in the Asian diasporic community) against Asians in western media as well- though in its case it has none of the glamor or "self-made" culture or associated pride attached to it (fetishization of Asian women, emasculation of Asian men, and a serious otherization and blatant disdain for both) so it just pisses people off, those who don't go all self-hating due to it, anyways. The (generally seen as, in practice 50/50 and still harmful) stereotypes and glamor/"self-made"/pride narrative comes in with the "model minority" myth instead.

As a side note, it just surprises me that the horribly-exploitative colonizing nations, which can be understandably stereotyped as ‘White’, haven’t also had a similar racial demonization. I suspect its similar to here, where the rich haute thief with a smile is looked over but the poor petit thief is a brute.

That's how it is all over the world and for most of history, I think... only education can solve it. And even those who have sympathy for those in poverty, and who are in the same lot, will naturally at least dislike, if not hate, those who do act like brutes (the haute thieves hire their own brutes- not all petite thieves are brutes on the other hand, hell I'd say many are more than justified in doing what they do if it's the right targets). And brutes are always the most visible and immediately threatening lot, when they're around...

Lumpen can be great people, and have great revolutionary, positive, community-building potential. Some of the greatest comrades, like Stalin, were first lumpen. But those who take from their community (their actual community- fellow proles, those who are struggling just the same) are at least scum on some level at the time of the act. Honest truth is I've done it before (if not much, and not in a long time), while I'd not say I had sticky fingers (kid me, maybe somewhat) there's still a very strong self-taught impulse, or debatably, survival mechanism, that tells me not to let an opportunity slip by, that I have to "claw my way up" and "take what I want" etc.. I've always had a strong sense of decency/morals/pride to go with it at least, but it is what it is.