this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
149 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22270 readers
371 users here now
Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.
Labour and union posts go to !labour@www.hexbear.net.
Take the dunks to /c/strugglesession or !the_dunk_tank@www.hexbear.net.
!chapotraphouse@www.hexbear.net 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
view the rest of the comments
He's saying that Social Democracy and Fascism form the left and right fists of the bourgeois imperialist states. They don't oppose each other from the perspective of those outside the empire and facing it's attacks, they support and regulate each other. Without Social Democracy regulating and sustaining capitalism and mitigating its crises the economic system would collapse and internal crisis would dominate and the empire would be unable to sustain outward pressure. Without Fascism, a social democratic Liberal state would transition into socialism and go too far - so it keeps fascism around to keep the socialists in check. Fascism is the necessary violence of the capitalist state, even a social democratic state, to sustain itself and enforce the limits of democracy (ie, to not allow the poor to vote away the wealth of the rich. There must be a hardline protection against that).
From the perspective of those outside of "Social Democratic Liberal Democracies" facing their imperialism, all they are seeing is fascism being imported into their country and invasions and meddling from fascist attacks. The social democrats keep things stable at home so that the fascist imperialists can extract value from the colonies and beat down any leftists inside the core. The fascists brutally destroy communists and leftists on behalf of capital, while being fed and clothed by the social democrats. It's a symbiotic marriage.
huh... explained like that what he's saying sort of makes sense.
i never thought I'd actually agree with this, I was a socdem since like... a month or two ago before I joined this site
thank you
It's worth noting this is only really true for imperialist nations and not for former colonies or periphery states. Social Democracy have their limits and issues, but they can often be genuine improvements in nations like Venezuela or Bolivia when they actually serve an anti-imperialist function (uniting the nation to kick out compradors and foreign capitalists and colonizers). Contrast this with Boric, who is a soc dem sell-out disconnected from the working class entirely who acts as a comprador - so they're not always good but have to be evaluated case-by-case basis.
man, I remember celebrating so much with my chilean friend when boric got elected
then the new constitution failed and we've just gotten more cynical... ; ;
It's still a victory, however small, to have Boric and not a fascist/neoliberal in charge of Chile.
it is, but he has mellowed down so much that he's probably not even a socdem anymore , at least according to my friend