Socdem is bad because capitalism etc etc I understand that, but I saw some people in here saying that socdem is OBJECTIVELY the moderate branch of fascism, which I don’t really understand, because most socdems I know just want their basic welfare system, but are far from nationalism, advocating for genocide etc

I know it’s still bad but for example in spain I feel there’s a big difference between the francoist spain and the socdem wannabe spain, for the better

So please explain, and feel free to call out any brainworms that I might (probably) have shown in here

This could also just be a very funny line, like the “unlimited genocide on the first world” thing, idk

  • thelastaxolotl [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    45·
    2 days ago

    Its from Stalin’s “Concerning the International Situation” which was USSR policy until they change it to the policy of the Popular front

    From this paragraph

    Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. 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. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.

    Nowdays its mostly used like the “unlimited genocide” as a funny line but there are still some examples of very reactionary socdem politicians so some people do still follow the “moderate fascist” position over the popular front

      • SevenSkalls [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        61·
        2 days ago

        I’ve seen others use this same logic to say that MLs are the equivalent to even lefter groups, though. Like how Soc Dems have betrayed communists, MLS have always betrayed and backstabbed anarchists. I haven’t read enough history to know if that’s true so I never argue this point. I guess one of the things they may be referring to is the Bolshevik 1917 revolution, and their betrayal of the elections, squashing of other socialist factions, etc?

    • durruticore [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      18·
      2 days ago

      So it’s less of like a spectrum (as in less fascist) and more as in both fascism and socdem are two tools used by the same arm?

      And now that you mention popular front, is it only acceptable when the fash is rising? or is it just another form of giving space to vote?

      With popular front I mean leftwing electoral and/or government coalitions, like in france with the nfp or in spain with the psoe-sumar gov