Gabriel Rockhill, "Are Fascism and Liberalism Partners in Capitalist Crime?" 

And externalities are endemic to market exchanges, not anomalies.

@@Barklord To the contrary the market is about the peaceful, mutually beneficial, voluntary transaction. If you dump your garbage on my lawn it is an infringement of every tenet of the free market society.

Fascism is the essence of 'crony capitalism', the colonization of the emergent institutions of property, money, law, language, markets by the state. By contrast anarcho capitalism amounts to the 'de-colonization' of property, money, law, language, and markets - to their liberation from the state.

​@robertcarpenter8077 You're limiting the evaluation of the exchange to the individuals who 'agree' without admitting there are substantive consequences to third parties, etc, as well as power imbalances between exchangers that coerce choices. This is the source of the growth of regulations, which, contrary to liberal market ideology, is often initiated by other private business interests for the sake of creating and maintaining market confidence. Building codes and licensure in a variety of industries are regulations for consumer and financial confidence. Private property and markets lead to enormous bureaucracy over and above the domination of those who are property-less. *The Social Costs of Private [Business] Enterprise* by K. William Kapp (1950), was a direct response to the new economic Liberalism of Hayek's Mont Pelerin Society. I recommend it as a free download.

_"fascism is a feature of capitalism, "_ Wrong. There is no correlation between Fascism and Capitalism. On the contrary, as a socialist ideology Fascism strictly opposed it.

Does he talk about what went wrong with communism? Particularly in the USSR..

Yes​@@gmw3083

​@@gmw3083 Hakim here on RU-vid has some neat videos on that

They're trying to do it again.

Let's see if Rockhill sharp enough to explain why Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt is wild popular in China among corporate executives and government officials.

Fascism had nothing to do with bourgeoisie though.

​@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.fascism had nothing to do with business owners? That's non-sense. Fascism drew from all social classes. One of its big talking points was its nationalist class collaboration, which was supposed to be a response to the Marxist critique of class society.

@@in.der.welt.sein. Bad choice of words from my part. Let me rephrase it; the only thing Fascism had to do with the bourgeoisie and the working class, was to unify them under the iron boot of the Fascist state. It was about class collaboration indeed, meaning everyone and everything would be subjugated to the rule of the State. As Mussolini himself put it: _“The State exists for all the people, but is also above the people, and, if necessary, against the people. It is against them whenever they attempt to place their particular interests above the general interests of the Nation ... It is the purpose of Fascism to unify the Nation through the sovereign State, the State which is above all and can be against all, because it represents the moral continuity of the Nation. Without State there is no Nation.”_ - Speech on August 8th, 1925

Your comment is interesting. What difference do you see between for example between; the Roman, the Angles,Saxons and Jutes, the Viking, the Norman invasions and settlement and enslavement ( at least the Romans and Vikings enslaved) of Britain, and say the foundation of Israel or America? Has not this been the whole history of the world, not just Western capitalism. I don’t know that socialism is essential for the liberation of former colonies. Very few if any colonies were ever strong enough to liberate themselves, they were usually just taken over by a competing coloniser or had their discontent exploited by a rival.

@@JohnM-du8nv Well Mussolini based fascism on the Ancient Roman Empire which has been the blueprint of the so-called "western civilisation", especially the pyramid of church, military and state. I am however no talking about the ancient era but from the early modern period when colonialism was given the papal stamp of approval to genocide non-christians in the so-called New World. The Spanish and Portugese were the first of the Catholic kingdoms to do so in Europe. The papal bull by Pope Alexander VI is the foundation of western imperialism: "The Bull stated that any land not inhabited by Christians was available to be "discovered," claimed, and exploited by Christian rulers and declared that "the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself." This "Doctrine of Discovery" became the basis of all European claims in the Americas as well as the foundation for the United States’ western expansion. In the US Supreme Court in the 1823 case Johnson v. McIntosh, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the unanimous decision held "that the principle of discovery gave European nations an absolute right to New World lands." In essence, American Indians had only a right of occupancy, which could be abolished." - The Doctrine of Discovery, 1493, The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History The protestant kingdoms of Britain and the Netherlands, as well as France would quickly follow. Remember that at the same time as genocide, slavery, predatory mercantilism and state-sponsored capital and protectionist policies that would decimate resource rich nations, all these kingdoms were committing mass murder at home in their numerous inquisitions and religious warfare, again given papal authority to do so. This would be the crucible out of which the modern era would emerge. My question is, how is this, religious authoritarianism, racism and colonialism, state inquisition, capitalism, different from fascism apart from the fact that for the established kingdoms pre-world war one, already had a whole doctrine for over 400 years whilst Italy and Germany (which only became a democracy in the 1920s btw) were trying to play catch up. In fact, Mussolini in particular was upset that Italy did not get any of the colonies they were promised after world war one. The world was already colonised by the "great powers" and that was the basis of world war two, the conquest and colonialism of the "axis" powers in the "allies" territories. That was why it was a WORLD war as the war was all over the colonies and territories of Britain, France, Russia and the United States.

@@evif9377 Israel isnt facist at all. Its more of a democracy then most ''democratic'' countries. The West is anti-socialist? Are you ignorant? Most of the West are socialist and covertly also facist regimes. This is most noticable in countries like Canada and the Netherlands. Setup far-right goverments around the world? The west has assasinated many right-wing/nationalist leaders around the world, like for example the Dutch Pim Fortuyn or the Japanese Shinzo Abe. Facism has always been alligned with Socialism, because facism just like socialism is anti-individualism and anti-nationalism.

@@evif9377I understand your question to be, about how is all “this” (meaning all the European aristocratic and church sponsored pre-capitalist colonialist endeavors, and even all those European developments in the first 150 years of capitalism (defined somewhat arbitrarily to begin with the publication of Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” in 1776) different from the fascist developments of of the early 20th century? I hope I understood your question correctly. If so … the answer isn’t difficult. Before the 20th century, in fact right up to the mass slaughter of WW I in 1914-1918, all European colonialist genocidal, or just plain tradition-based “exploration” or “trade” projects European nations engaged in, and the political ideology they were all founded upon before 1918, were ALL based upon an almost completely unquestioned understanding of a rather rigid social hierarchy, and the concept of national sovereignty that resulted from thinking rigidly in terms of hierarchy … a society based upon a strict hierarchy reflecting the unquestioned primacy of an aristocracy of some kind, and monarchs (or a sovereign of some other superior kind like a Emperor) to rule with the policing assistance of the aristocrats and the spiritual assistance of the church. Commoners and non-landowners were all but irrelevant. Fascism reflected something fundamentally different about the assumptions regarding power and who had the “right” to rule. Fascism is POPULIST. Fascism is based upon something radically new in the 20th century, never before seen on a large scale anywhere before. It was new and unpredicted in a way that neither Marx nor Engels could even conceive of the idea of a WORKING CLASS REACTIONARY CONSERVATISM so powerful that the masses of working class people could be persuaded to adopt a hyper-nationalist / racist / ethinic chauvinist ideology and form the theoretical common “ people” or “folk” that made the theoretical spiritual essence and power of the state … and which the ruling “leader” or “führer” or “Duce” or “Conducator” was only a spiritual conduit but also the living embodiment for this energy of the people’s will. Nevertheless each individual person was a spiritual nothing, and total obedience to the “leader” was crucial in order to fulfill the destiny of the people’s will, which the leader had perfect knowledge of. Of course the true capitalist ownership class of the fascist state survived this nonsense almost entirely undisturbed. Their power and wealth dramatically increased, since all the populist socilaist revolutionary energy of the working class had been redirected toward this bullshit nasty cultural purpose, and all union and labor organizing efforts that might genuinely improve the lives of the working class whose energy had all come from a failing capitalist system and its flailing efforts at oppression in the first place. Such selfish class efforts against the leader and his appointed state officials were not only treasonous but of course just illegal top-to-bottom. Such a mass movement like fascism just was not possible before the 20th century; the mass democratization of European nations that made it possible to create a populist reactionary conservatism just wouldn’t be possible before this time, and the loss of faith first in the traditional forms of monarchic hierarchy, but before sufficient economic class consciousness and truly socialist state institutions had developed so that the institutions and mechanisms of aristocratic and oligarchic rule were still functioning within these democratized states. So the ruling class capitalist elite was still the elite wealthy group in charge, but via a process that was inconceivable before the great democratizing movements of the 20th century (indeed there can be no fascism without a failed democratic or at least semi-democratic precursor state), fascism arises from a self-aware populist democracy or semi- or pseudo-democratic state mobilized partially against itself (the necessity of perceived domestic internal “enemies of the state) in order to permit the ruling class to abuse cultural or racial or nationalist or whatever arguments first against marginalized groups within their own state, and then against similar ubiquitous enemies all around them threatening their newfound state purity and innocence once cleansed of their own internal evil. With the addition of the “purified” working class now transformed via this (violent and genocidal) mystical fascist process into “the people” or “the folk” (or “the true patriot Falangists” like in Spain … it can take many forms … but they all seek civil conflict and violent “purification” of the nation) whose will flows through the embodiment of their will … “the Leader”, who’s will of course cannot be questioned and must be obeyed. No dissent is allowed. So in the same way that a communist revolution needs the class conscious working class and their common economic interests, the fascist reactionary purge needs the mass consciousness of a violent palingenetic “common people” and their cultural or racial or religious or ethnic consciousness and resentment to coalesce around. But they aren’t both socialist. There is no egalitarianism in fascism, and no economic redistribution or disruption of the hierarchy of wealth like socialism produces. This is a common misleading statement or misconception. Fascism isn’t socialist. As I said, even Marx and Engels didn’t see this possibility for all they predicted could happen when capitalism began to fail would be the development of economic class conscious among the working class against the capitalist ruling class which would result in a socialist / communist revolution bringing to power, eventually, the dictatorship of the working class until all notions of class hierarchy, the necessity for dictatorship, and indeed all notions of government and state itself, eventually faded away as over the decades / centuries the thought of capital, personal property, class, race, etc. etc. all possible mental notions to form the basis for establishing hierarchy would be no longer conceivable. They weren’t too clear about how this would happen. But it was clear that Marx and Engels didn’t conceive of a conservative populism, in spite of their vast knowledge of the economic and political history of Europe and America. They underestimated the ability of capitalism to adapt and survive, and failed to predict the slippery fascist course capitalism charted for itself to survive the massive upheavals of the kind seen in the early 20th century. The global socialist revolution didn’t work out the way Marx predicted of course, and capitalism was quite adaptive to changing conditions and even found a way within the democratizing and growing class conscious European derived states to adopt the nineteenth century notions of NATIONALISM, racism, ethic division and hierarchy, religious fervor, etc. and encourage the working class to adopt and identify with these mass culture movements in order to divert attention from the economic class consciousness socialism encouraged. With a working class now convinced it had political power via the powerful emotional categories of nationalist superiority and especially racial supremacy all the revolutionary energy of the working class was first diverted against the working class itself, into a divisive culture war to violently cleanse and “make innocent, pure, and great again) the resentful state of its internal enemies, then be made to tolerate the rich capitalist ruling class’ apparatus they themselves had helped build and maintain to keep vigilant against these enemies first at home, and of course from trying to infiltrate from outside. So simply put, the 20th century produced fascism because the rich capitalists who were trying to save their positions and wealth and wealth accumulation took the populist revolutionary socialist energy that the nineteenth century rise of mass movement democracy made possible, and turned it against the working class itself by creating a sense of moral panic, and by dividing the working class along lines of race, or nationality, or religion, or ethnicity … whatever was most convenient in each country and turning the economic resentment caused by the failures of capitalism into a fascist, culture based resentment instead. Quite ingenious. So ingenious and novel, as I said, Marx and Engels hadn’t been able to conceive of such a thing!

@@JAI_8 Wow, thank you for your detailed, informed reply. I really appreciate it. I of course agree with what you wrote. What I was trying to get at in my original comment was a longer pattern of behaviour that pre-dates the modern era as I take issue with the narrative that "fascism" is too distinctive to apply to imperialism, liberalism, capitalism and colonialism. Like it only applies to several instances in the 20th century and definitely not to the so-called "free-world". I agree with your answer and I only want to elaborate a bit more on my thoughts. "Capitalism" separates the medieval era, that is before European mercantilism, expansion, slavery and colonialism; the whole basis of the modern, globalist, liberal Western world, and the early modern period. Why don't we ever frame state-run inquisitions of the 15th - 18th century as populist? The public was surely whipped into frenzies in order to persecute the "other" and tens of thousands of dissenters, women, men, Jews and Muslims, homosexuals and such were oppressed and murdered. All to build the identity of the state that was based on a pure, ideal kind of Christendom. If we talk of propaganda and manufactured consent, its the same elites - the ancien regime - church/king/aristocracy/military - heading it. And media, with its intellectual class, was used as the dissemination of misinformation and propaganda against outside groups. The printing press turbo charged the inquisition across Europe. These weren't just documents of persecution but manifestos of expansion and supremacy. Once the New World is given sanction to be populated and controlled by Christendom, by the state with its elites, the "other" becomes people who aren't white. This is a pattern of behaviour that pre-dates and helps edify what would become western civilisation - its identity, its outlook, its socioeconomics. "Capitalism" is a European system entirely based on the oppression of the other and manufactured consent of the accepted, edified by unpaid labour of oppressed groups, be they people of colour in the colonies, the poor at home, or women, hence the endemic racism, classism and sexism existing within the structure. Capitalism can't just be purely about economics if the economic structure is based on inquisition and imperialism which itself is predicated on an ideology of supremacy and homogeneity/purity. That is where my thoughts land. Fascism could have only existed with the structural oppression that it not only supports but is created by. Yes, Franco's Spain, Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy killed millions of people in their projects but it is not unique in western history if you frame it as inquisition and imperialism. Inquisition of the demonised "Other" and imperialism of colonial lands to populate. It's a mentality.

EXACTLY.

Welcome, and we greatly appreciate the support!

@@criticaltheoryworkshop5299 You are welcome!

Try Anakbayan if you’re in the USA.

I've created one: American Jobless Leftists Smelling Their Own Farts (AJLSTOF). Hmu to sign up

Most of them are just the workers of subversion serving their neo-fascist globalist paymasters - I’m sure you’ve noticed. They’re brought in to start chaos, and their funders and paymasters fill the vacuum and neo-fascist globalism grows and spreads. This was the Covid project - government helps destroy small business, especially minority owned small business to crush all competition against huge corporations. Then the corporations open later, close earlier, have fewer items, poorer service and higher prices, and the community has no options. Just like the minority small business owner now works for Walmart or Amazon, but too few hours to get health insurance, or any paid time off. Every so called socialist voice bows to the neo-fascist globalists. Look at Bernie Sanders, what a pathetic coward and sell out. I’m shocked anyone ever believed AOC - I guess desperation does that. The most dangerous type on the planet”left” side is the establishment progressive - who actually relishes serving the globalists for a far stack of cash as they claim to fight the good fight.

Modi's idol is not Bose. This is a misreading. Bose comes from a tradition of anti-colonial nationalists who would seek help from the enemy of their enemy (England). This tradition was strong in India. A host of Indian nationalists got support from the German Empire in the first world war too. This is known as the Hindu-German conspiracy. Several of those nationalists later became some of the earliest communists in India (check Mohd Barkatullah and Har Dayal Mathur). Even so, Bose got little support from Hitler. He was able to get closer to Japan, but he wasn't interested in helping in the colonial slaughter that the fascist states undertook. Bose's actual politics was that of left-wing nationalism. He was himself a strong opponent of Hindu supremacism in Bengal and formed his own party (Forward Bloc) by organizing the left-wing within the Indian National Congress. But the thread you are on is quite accurate, in a different way. Modi's real icons in fact are the likes of Moonje, Golwalkar, and Savarkar. Each of these were Nazi admirers and collaborators, and they modelled their Hindu fascist organizations by drawing from the ideological and organizational principles of the fascist powers, and in fact by forging explicit contact with their consulates in India and by propagandizing within India about the successes of the fascist powers. The Italian scholar Marzia Casolari has done damning research on this.

@@ABBartan Excellent 💯

@@ABBartan yes, you are correct. The error isn’t by mistake - it’s pathological. This video echoes the pathology that’s dominated main stream leftist narratives which deliberately label any left-associated politics as “right wing” as soon as it’s deemed violent, militaristic (colonial in any way) and most importantly, nationalistic. This pathology cannot even conceptualize a left-wing nationalism because, to them, it’s inherently right wing - it’s a priori. The German National Socialist Workers Party was left wing by almost every salient measure. It’s almost unintelligible to label them fascists - just like it’s absurd to label imperial Japan fascists (they’re certainly not left wing either). This propaganda over the past 80 plus years has rendered the left/right paradigm totally incoherent.

I would say definitely yes. Look at the farmers protests and the neoliberalization under his rule.

Hate to disappoint but criticism of BRICS nations is not tolerated on this platform.

@@presterjohn1697 But why would you criticize BRICS? Are they funding a genocide and being evil global bullies in general? No, obviously. The emergence of a multipolar world is the current best cure for the US's psychopathic full-spectrum dominance hegemony.

​@@presterjohn1697Rockhill and many of his colleagues regard modern India as either fascist or fascist-adjacent. The membership of extreme reactionary regimes in BRICS is a topic of considerable concern and debate.

@@rsavage-r2v Do you find it somewhat counterintuitive that Rockhill and his colleagues have no critique whatsoever for China's growing billionaire class and what this means for the working class? On the topic of fascism, Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt is quite popular among top government officials and the business elite in China. The World Economic Forum, a overtly fascist think tank touts China as the model for the global community. Seems this would raise a brow among the Left.

Gaslighting and lies to distance the collectivist and Marxians roots

The axis powers were playing catchup to Britain in terms of colonial empire. Fascism can be thought of as a sort of growth theory, a way of accelerating national industrial development through colonization. Fascism seemed attractive in the West for this reason, even to someone like the pan-Africanist Marcus Garvey. It was an ideology of national self determination, a community of faith, in other words. Britain had no imperative for fascistic nationalism because its citizens were already part of a well developed global capitalist empire.

The Oxford group (was a fascist group that aligned themselves with Churchill and Britain at that time). Well, it would be redundant if Britain went the fascist route given their foreign policy. However, if Britain truly went fascist, they'd lose big foreign allies. If Britain ended up siding with Germany, Italy, and Japan then they would've been f'ed (since America did the heavy lifting for them, but still Soviets did it all on the other side). The British imperialists are not stupid and are always a few steps ahead. They knew it would be effective for them to side with the US and others (then again the Atlanticists are tight together).

​@@jason8434you are 100% correct. That's exactly how I've understood it

Bengal famine, concentration camps in Africa, etc. Britain succumbed plenty. If you look at Soviet history, they astutely regarded the British Empire as the real threat to the global working class and to colonized people. This is, for example, why Stalin supported the creation of Israel, as a means of weakening the British Empire. (Something I was deeply shocked and disappointed to learn, although I somewhat understand the rationale.)

They're getting close with Trump

"lock em up"

@@kevintewey1157 If that were true the gop would be running/backing someone else. They know he ain’t getting locked up, just like he knew she wasn’t.

Cause we not ultranationaled, yes we have some fuckers here, but overall we are not, we have many nationalities here even from former USSR, it's not like etnorussian state, and many on the West don't understand about Russia, nobody don't give a fuck about faith in here in church specifically, our tv trying, simingly your propaganda tell different, but in major nobody don't give a fuck, and nobody says me socialist, and marxist in jail because they brake the law, like it or not, not because they marxist, it's on ukraine communism and all USSR stuff is forbidden

Yes, because social democrats are on the same team as nazis -- capital. Look at Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez equivocating about genocide. It's the same phenomenon that led to the death of German socialism and the rise of nazism. As Stalin said, "Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism."

Social Democrats are fascists

@@boi9842 Odd, my comment was censored by YT even though I stated this much more mildly and indirectly. Look at what the German Social Democrats did after WW1, look at what JVS said in "Concerning the International Situation", and look at Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez equivocating about g-word and defending f-word or Robert Reich defending Biden tooth and nail and trying to convince people that g-word is just one of many equally important issues, probably less important than the crumbs the Democrats will offer us.

That is why social democrats are known as moderate fascists. Liberals will always align with fascists to maintain their power.

Sapphic Twist I don't believe you've understood, processed the arguments in this video. Lol

The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery." "... If the means of production remain in the hands of a small number of capitalists, there is no way out for society. It is condemned to go from crisis to crisis, from need to misery, from bad to worse. In the various countries, the decrepitude and disintegration of capitalism are expressed in diverse forms and at unequal rhythms. But the basic features of the process are the same everywhere. The bourgeoisie is leading its society to complete bankruptcy. It is capable of assuring the people neither bread nor peace. This is precisely why it cannot any longer tolerate the democratic order. It is forced to smash the workers and peasants by the use of physical violence. The discontent of the workers and peasants, however, cannot be brought to an end by the police alone. Moreover, if it often impossible to make the army march against the people. It begins by disintegrating and ends with the passage of a large section of the soldiers over to the people’s side. That is why finance capital is obliged to create special armed bands, trained to fight the workers just as certain breeds of dog are trained to hunt game. The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery." THE COLLAPSE OF BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY Whither France? (Trotsky, 1934)

Israel is mentioned but there is no discussion of the development of fascist ideology within Zionism. The names, writings and actions of Vladimir Jabotinksy, Avraham Stern and Meir Kahane should be widely know. On June 22, 1933, the leaders of the Zionist Organization for Germany sent a memorandum to Hitler, which declared: "Zionism believes that the rebirth of the national life of a people, which is now occurring in Germany through the emphasis on its Christian and national character, must also come about among the Jewish people. For the Jewish people, too, national origin, religion, common destiny and a sense of uniqueness must be of decisive importance to its existence. This demands the elimination of the egotistical individualism of the liberal era, and its replacement with a sense of community and collective responsibility." Quoted in: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7NDwYEn3M0s.html -- WATCH Stern: The Man, The Gang & The State ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xKKMMni619g.html -- Itamar Ben-Gvir is the current Minister of National Security and a prominent proponent of the fascist ideology of Meir Kahane. Netanyahu’s statement “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.” comes straight from Kahane. QUOTE ... The political theology of contemporary Zionism represents the extreme counterrevolutionary antithesis and repudiation of the progressive, democratic and socialist tradition derived from Spinozist and, later, Marxist thought among generations of Jewish workers and intellectuals. Reinterpreting religious myth in the spirit of extreme national chauvinism, contemporary Zionist theology imparts to the concept of a “chosen people” a thoroughly racist and fascistic character. While it is widely acknowledged that the Israeli government is composed of parties of the extreme right, this political fact is treated as a minor detail that has no particular relation to the events of October 7 and the Israeli state’s response. Virtually no reference is to be found in political coverage of the war to the influence of an apocalyptic “Theology of Revenge,” which explicitly demands the annihilation of all enemies of Israel, on the policies of the Netanyahu government. A central figure in the development of the “Theology of Revenge” was the late Meir Kahane. Born in Brooklyn in 1932, his father, Rabbi Charles Kahane, was a friend and associate of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the leader of an avowedly fascist wing of the Zionist movement. Meir Kahane initially achieved public notoriety in the United States as the founder of the neo-fascist Jewish Defense League. The JDL targeted black organizations in New York, which Kahane denounced as a threat to Jews. ... Summing up the three pillars [of Kahane's theory of revenge] …Kahane argues that carrying out vengeance against the metaphysical enemy “Amalek” (hostile Gentiles) is fundamental to saving God and his people, both of whom almost ceased to exist as a result of the Holocaust. The establishment of the Jewish state, with its institutionalized power and military might, should, in Kahane’s view, be placed at the service of redemption-bound revenge. Kahane goes so far as to justify acts of vengeance even against innocent people by arguing that they belong to the mythical enemy that must be eradicated as a condition for the redemption of Israel and its God. In his view, the loss of innocent lives, if necessary, is a justifiable sacrifice. FROM: The Israeli state's fascist ideology and the genocide in Gaza ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ruGrVp15N2w.htmlsi=l44wy3tWgDCK3QGm

@@kevintewey1157 I have no idea what you are referring to. You don't address a single point in my comment. Are you sure you have posted in the right place?

@@johnwilsonwswsthis comment section is chock full of intense reactionaries and outright fascists (all seen mostly illiterate)

I adore that WSWS is so good on the ongoing pandemic but it frustrates me how obsessed every member I’ve engaged has been on Stalin/Trotsky and USSR.

Classical radicalism?

I 100% agree. People should start by reading the later works of John Stuart Mill, which was liberal socialism and the ideas can be traced back through time to other liberals. Liberalism is not capitalism. Capitalism appropriated liberalism to give liberalism a veneer of legitimacy. But because todays so-called liberals are really fake liberals by every single measure, the left socialists are obligated to appropriate the best of that history. Furthermore Marx himself actually agreed with certain liberal ideas, but criticized them to make them more specific and concrete under material conditions. This includes freedom of press, property rights and the original justification for them namely securing one’s labor value, the labor theory of value, equality, and many more ideas. It is the responsibility of the left socialists to take up the real values and advancements because there are no real liberals.

Maybe i would agree with you if you would mention Bibi, Maybe i would agree with you if incompetent Biden was a woman. And i would agree with you, if we wouldn't have multinational corporations.

Delusional comment

It's that why Mao Zedong thought is called revisionist by Marxist Leninists like enver hoxha?

1) See Prof.Michael Hudson’s many descriptions of Chinas dominant socialist gov .& subordinate capitalist class- new phenomena. 1 of leading Chinese capitalists said that he had much money but NO power.

That’s standard for the Critical Theory Workshop crew. The other problematic thing is the cozy relationship with the Midwest Marx nazbols/patsocs.

​@@bigusjforming allegiances is necessary if socialism is to grow.

@@manuag3886 not with patsoc/nazbol scum. Many, many other allies. Even deluded trots are better.

Try reading maybe someday

@@desireegerber Try reading books not written by delusional commies.

@@desireegerber You're the only one who's read a book, right?

So enlighten us.

@@dinnerwithfranklin2451 Move into a predominantly non-white urban, inner-city community. You deserve it.

@@dinnerwithfranklin2451 : As you wish. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism/democracy, and marxism. The means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism. Fascism was an outgrowth of Sorellian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism. The idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the state, or "embody" the state (corpus = body). The purpose was the centralization and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." As created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, Fascism comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society. It cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.

@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. I have to say that I'm impressed. It isn't often that one sees the result of such strenuous effort to misinterpret words, ideas and history. It must have taken you ages. Yeah you are going to ask me to explain where you have misunderstood and/or misinterpreted. So I'll satisfy you with one example. You say "Fascism ...rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism/democracy, and marxism." And in the next paragraph "Fascism was an outgrowth of Sorellian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism." Well done for your effort but I'm not wasting my time debunking any more of this.

​@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.nice Nazi apologia ret/ard

I'm more interested Chinese oligarchs offshoring $4 Trillion. That's a lot of money to remove from the economy and it bears a striking resemblance to western billionaires.

@@presterjohn1697 What does that have to do with anything?

@@flippydaflip5310 It's incredibly fascinating how a communist nation can have rapidly growing billionaire class who takes private wealth and stores it in offshore accounts. Feel capital(ish).

This would be backwards. Capitalism is the dominant system.

I would recommend Maos "Combat Liberalism"