askchapo

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

The Stalin line is a reference to the role that social democrats play in fascism. Under this framing, fascism is a political formation in defense of capitalism and the capitalist state against socialist revolution, which is basically correct: fascists gain power from factions of the bourgeoisie because they organize and do violence against the most revolutionary socialists. The strength of that reaction is proportional to the perceived threat.

Social democrats also protect capitalism and the capitalist state against revolutionary socialists. Their goal is to achieve reforms that materially benefit the wider public while leaving capitalists fundamentally in charge of everything. They perceive revolutionary socialists as a barrier to this project and reveal the fascistic nature of this urge: they use what state powers to oppress revolutionary socialists. They sic the cops on your protest. They fund the cops that those to their right sic on your protest. They produce anticommunist messaging lest the public sympathize. They legitimate the capitalist state they supposedly seek to reform. Fascism is just an uglier form of these things, a stronger anticommunist reaction. And liberalism is throughout.

SocDems want reform, not revolution and this is an irreconcilable split. SocDems are politically incentivized to betray leftist movements and they have repeatedly done so.

Examples: SDP killing the Sparticists, George Orwell ratting leftists put to the government, Bernie's votes on foreign policy, Norway choosing NATO over the WP

In one sentence: because of imperialism.

it's welfare funded by sweatshops. Socdem governments crush foreign labor to placate domestic labor.

And placation is all it is. /u/xiaohongshu posted this graph here the other day: work hours plummeted when the Russian revolution kicked off.

Socdem parties in the west justify the continued existence of capitalism through the canard of reform and welfare, and to realize their ambitions they betray socialists and leftists to the state though security mongering

Socdem economic policy also necessitates the continued existence of the profit motive in scaled economies, which means socdems have to feed someone to the grinder, almost always foreign non-white people, which is why countless socdem parties embrace neoconservative policies and hyber-nationalistic jingoism as party platforms, which creates cover and domestic support for extractive and unfair trade practices with poorer countries. The primary directive of all socdem parties is to transfer the social costs of capitalism to foreign markets

The original generation of socdems justified this "moderate fascism" through the claim that reforming capitalism would somehow transform it's incentive structure, lead to national unity and trigger the evolution of capitalism into post-capitalist socialism

That belief has completely died out and modern iterations of socdems are distinctly post-Keynesian and believe capitalism to be an eternal facet of human existence, despite the world ending crises modern capitalism is generating

Because SocDems won't support a revolution to overthrow capitalism, they'll just team up with fascists and liberals to maintain it.

Expanding on what the other commenters have said -

Ultimately when the status quo is threatened it’s been shown multiple times throughout history that even though SocDems may desire a somewhat more equal society their actions have pretty much always been against communists fighting for actual change (SPD and Luxembourg, etc.).

They see themselves as allies of capitalism at the end of the day so once push comes to shove they cant be counted as allies. That doesn’t mean we can’t work with them in very specific instances or try to educate them into becoming communists (think a lot of communists started out as SocDems at some point) but we need to keep in mind that as organizations/parties they aren’t allies and will not protect us from the more brutal wings of fascism.

Edit:

Another way to think about it is SocDems will support capital until the end since they still think it can be reformed(otherwise they wouldn’t be SocDems), and since capitalism will always decay into Fascism that’s why they’re the moderate wing of Fascism.

Some people think that the bourgeoisie adopted “pacifism” and “democracy” not because it was compelled to do so, but voluntarily, of its own free choice, so to speak. And it is assumed that, having defeated the working class in decisive battles (Italy, Germany), the bourgeoisie felt that it was the victor and could now afford to adopt “democracy.” In other words, while the decisive battles were in progress, the bourgeoisie needed a fighting organisation, needed fascism; but now that the proletariat is defeated, the bourgeoisie no longer needs fascism and can afford to use “democracy” instead, as a better method of consolidating its victory. Hence, the conclusion is drawn that, the rule of the bourgeoisie has become consolidated, that the “era of pacifism” will be a prolonged one, and that the revolution in Europe has been pigeonholed.

This assumption is absolutely wrong.

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.

Secondly, it is not true that the decisive battles have already been fought, that the proletariat was defeated in these battles, and that bourgeois rule has been consolidated as a consequence. There have been no decisive battles as yet, if only for the reason that there have not been any mass, genuinely Bolshevik parties, capable of leading the proletariat to dictatorship. Without such parties, decisive battles for dictatorship are impossible under the conditions of imperialism. The decisive battles in the West still lie ahead. There have been only the first serious attacks, which were repulsed by the bourgeoisie; the first serious trial of strength, which showed that the proletariat is not yet strong enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie, but that the bourgeoisie is already unable to discount the proletariat. And precisely because the bourgeoisie is already unable to force the working class to its knees, it was compelled to renounce frontal attacks, to make a detour, to agree to a compromise, to resort to “democratic pacifism.”

Lastly, it is also not true that “pacifism” is a sign of the strength and not of the weakness of the bourgeoisie, that “pacifism” should result in consolidating the power of the bourgeoisie and in postponing the revolution for an indefinite period. Present-day pacifism signifies the advent to power, direct or indirect, of the parties of the Second International. But what does the advent to power of the parties of the Second International mean? It means their inevitable self-exposure as lackeys of imperialism, as traitors to the proletariat, for the governmental activity of these parties can have only one result: their political bankruptcy, the growth of contradictions within these parties, their disintegration, their decay. But the disintegration of these parties will inevitably lead to the disintegration of the rule of the bourgeoisie, for the parties of the Second International are props of imperialism. Would the bourgeoisie have undertaken this risky experiment with pacifism if it had not been compelled to do so; would it have done so of its own free will? Of course, not! This is the second time that the bourgeoisie is undertaking the experiment with pacifism since the end of the imperialist war. The first experiment was made immediately after the war, when it seemed that revolution was knocking at the door. The second experiment is being undertaken now, after Poincaré’s and Curzon’s risky experiments. Who would dare deny that imperialism will have to pay dearly for this swinging of the bourgeoisie from pacifism to rabid imperialism and back again, that this is pushing vast masses of workers out of their habitual philistine rut, that it is drawing the most backward sections of the proletariat into politics and is helping to revolutionise them? Of course, “democratic pacifism” is not yet the Kerensky regime, for the Kerensky regime implies dual power, the collapse of bourgeois power and the coming into being of the foundations of proletarian power. But, there can scarcely be any doubt that pacifism signifies the immense awakening of the masses, the fact that the masses are being drawn into politics; that pacifism is shaking bourgeois rule and preparing the ground for revolutionary upheavals. And precisely for this reason pacifism is bound to lead not to the strengthening, but to the weakening of bourgeois rule, not to the postponement of the revolution for an indefinite period, but to its acceleration.

It does not, of course, follow that pacifism is not a serious danger to the revolution. Pacifism serves to sap the foundations of bourgeois rule, it is creating favourable conditions for the revolution; but it can have these results only against the will of the “pacifists” and “democrats” themselves, only if the Communist Parties vigorously expose the imperialist and counter-revolutionary nature of the pacifist-democratic rule of Herriot and MacDonald. As for what the pacifists and democrats want, as for the policy of the imperialists, they have only one aim in resorting to pacifism: to dupe the masses with high-sounding phrases about peace in order to prepare for a new war; to dazzle the masses with the brilliance of “democracy” in order to consolidate the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie; to stun the masses with clamour about the “sovereign” rights of nations and states in order the more successfully to prepare for intervention in China, for slaughter in Afghanistan and in the Sudan, for the dismemberment of Persia; to fool the masses with highfaluting talk about “friendly” relations with the Soviet Union, about various “treaties” with the Soviet government, in order to establish still closer relations with the counter-revolutionary conspirators who have been kicked out of Russia, with the aim of bandit operations in Byelorussia, the Ukraine and Georgia. The bourgeoisie needs pacifism as a camouflage. This camouflage constitutes the chief danger of pacifism. Whether the bourgeoisie will succeed in its aim of fooling the people depends upon the vigour with which the Communist Parties in the West and in the East expose the bourgeoisie, upon their ability to tear the mask from the imperialists in pacifist clothing. There is no doubt that events and practice will work in favour of the Communists in this respect by exposing the discrepancy between the pacifist words and the imperialist deeds of the democratic servitors of capital. It is the duty of the Communists to keep pace with events and ruthlessly to expose every step, every act of service to imperialism and betrayal of the proletariat committed by the parties of the Second International.

from Concerning the International Situation (1924) by J.V. Stalin

they're the people who push tankie, ccp bad rhetoric in your left spaces.

Try talking to socdems about russia, china or korea and see how quick they drop their mask

They want to maintain the same structures to fund their welfare state. That allows those structures to ratfuck the social programmes into nothing and use them as a tool of social control. Because their ideology requires working within the state, when the state and its project are threatened they take its side against the left.

In the imperial core, social democracy is a way to bribe and placate citizens, to create a labor aristocracy that benefits from colonial extraction and will thus support it. This is made possible exactly by that extraction, the surplus from the periphery makes up for the lost surplus from the core. It is just a way to redraw the line between the oppressed and the beneficiaries of that oppression.

Historically, like in Greece or Rome, that uplifted citizenry also constituted a much more effective military force to power the imperial expansion that keeps the system going, but I'm not sure if that still applies.

The general jist is that the communist method of identifying fascism is as a counter-movement to communism. Fascism arises wherever leftist revolutionary movements are reaching a point that will endanger the state, the capitalists fund fascism to acquire the tool of unlimited violence to use against the left to crush the threat, then they transition back to liberalism which is a more efficient extractor of value than fascism. This protects liberalism from being blamed for the violence and yet handily allows the bourgeoisie to use it. Fascism is the antibody of capitalism, the white blood cell that cleans capitalism of the communist infection to protect it. We understand fascism to function this way and to transition back into liberalism rather than becoming its own distinct thing because that's precisely what happened everywhere that fascism won, fascism simply transitions back to liberalism later after achieving its task.

With this method of identifying fascism in mind the social democracy in europe that arose post-ww2 was implemented to deradicalise leftist movements by providing compromise with the workeers without ending capitalism. This functionally carries out the same thing fascism does but through a different method - cleansing the population of radicals by changing the material conditions that cause those radicals to occur.

In this way it is the "moderate" wing of fascism, performing the same goal fascism performs but through different means. Prior to the implementation of social democratic concessions communism was spreading across europe, social democracy stopped it.

I always thought it was the system established by it then just generic "socdems"

Since to provide that welfare state under capitalism you must do shit loads of Imperialism, especially relative to the state's size (or be sitting on a century of stolen capital)

It just doesn't bring the Imperialism home. But basically does double the amount abroad

Then once the "right" wing of fascism moves in they just leverage that state capacity and bring that shit home

(average actual socdem i would not treat as a fascist just someone that needs to be brought a tad further left)

Just anecdotally. Socdems in my life have gone all Enoch Powell after Starmer did. Like advocating for undoing basic international law on the rights of a migrant. All they care about is some nefarious win and polls.

Because stalin said it once. Then he changed his opinion but that part doesn't matter.

Lots of great comments being me here, but I just wanted to add weight to the idea that, while socdems might often shy away from vulgar displays of nationalism, loyalty to empire is arguably the one thing they won't compromise on. Corbyn is such a rare exception to this rule, it's hardly surprising he got shafted as hard as he did.